Illegal To Take a Photo In a Shopping Center?

No. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 16:24 · Score: 0

Next question.

Re:No. by xstonedogx · 2011-10-10 16:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Partial credit. The correct answer is "Hell no." I would also have accepted "Fuck you."
Re:No. by justforgetme · 2011-10-10 16:59 · Score: 1

or "Fuck off", or "Don't be silly", or "You're embarasing yourself" the list goes on...
For fucks sake, please somebody put some comon sense to those people
</rant>

--
-- no sig today
Re:No. by presidenteloco · 2011-10-10 17:42 · Score: 1

Or (thinks) "Little do you know I'm also streaming live video of this little encounter with my BCVC (baseball cap video camera)."

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Re:No. by beelsebob · 2011-10-10 18:56 · Score: 2

Not illegal, but perfectly okay to be banned –on private property, in the UK, which this is, the owner is entirely at their liberty to say whether or not you can take a photo.
Re:No. by AmonTheMetalhead · 2011-10-10 19:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually, reality is a little bit more complex, the owner of the mall is within his rights to forbid the use of camera's within it's confines. However, that has to be clearly marked and the only thing he can legally do is ask you to leave the premises if you do take pictures. He does not have the right to delete your pictures nor to confiscate your device.
Re:No. by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-10-10 19:58 · Score: 1

See, that's the problem with putting so much value on "private ownership rights": someone ends up owning the government, and it generally isn't you.
Re:No. by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-10-10 20:00 · Score: 2

I very much doubt they can do much else other than kick you out if you do take a photo, however. Definitely not confiscate your camera.
Re:No. by AmonTheMetalhead · 2011-10-10 20:07 · Score: 2

Well the thing is, on private grounds I make the rules and I can ask you to vacate those grounds if I feel that need. On public property however, the rules are different.
Re:No. by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-10-10 20:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

The "thing is" that all property is held in fee simple and ultimately belongs to the government, and most of what you can and cannot do anywhere is defined or enforced or allowed to be enforced thanks to the government. This will never change as long as the world is ruled by humans. So the question becomes whether you want a government which can be bought by the many or bought by the few. The answer will depend on whether the dominant philosophy in the country is to invent rights for the powerful or rights for the weak. America just might possibly be slowly changing its mind, but it's still firmly in the former camp.
"But won't somebody please think of the mall owner!" OK, I'm thinking of him, and I've decided that where lots of public eyes may go, he must permit private photographs as an extension of the natural faculty of memory (which may be photographic).
Re:No. by AmonTheMetalhead · 2011-10-10 20:22 · Score: 1

Hey, I didn't take any stance here, I just clarified what your rights are.
Re:No. by jonbryce · 2011-10-10 20:25 · Score: 2

Not in Scotland, where the Breahead Shopping Centre is located. In Scotland, you own the land outright, not that it makes any practical difference.
Re:No. by Pax681 · 2011-10-10 20:27 · Score: 4, Informative

the Law is DIFFERENT in Scotland you know........ because we have a separate and distinct legal system.
while you are correct in saying that they might be able to stop you taking a pic there's no chance that a security muppet from a private firm has any rights to confiscate your property.. in Scotland that would theft along with "wilful deprivation of property"
Also doing so i Glasgow would be a bold move..lol the Weedgies would have yer eye out for less! i asked a mate of mine who is a Lothian and Borders(Edinburgh area) police officer and he said and i quote "that's a load of balls bud, they can't really stop you and definitely cannot take your kit, the force of law is not on their side" he then told me what the security dude could be charged with for taking your kit. Also under certain circumstances if the security "man-handle" you they can be done for assault as well!
Re:No. by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-10-10 20:38 · Score: 1

Are you thinking of the Let's Pretend Feudalism's Over (Scotland) Act 2000? As you say, it makes little difference to the limits imposed by government on land ownership.
Re:No. by Firehed · 2011-10-10 20:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

He also doesn't have the right to say that breaking his mall's rules is illegal. If you break policy, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, you are then trespassing. That is illegal. Despite what cops (or pompous property owners) say, photography is not a crime. They can neither confiscate your camera nor make you delete the photos.
Of course, that only applies to the US; YMMV but I expect most countries are very similar.

--
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Re:No. by jonbryce · 2011-10-10 20:44 · Score: 3, Informative

Even before that, if you were the feuholder of the land, you owned it outright, whereas the closest equivalent in England, the freeholder, merely has a licence to occupy the land in perpetuity from the Queen. I'm thinking more of the Norman invasion in 1066 which didn't happen in Scotland.
However, you do still need to get planning permission to do things with the land, and you can still be subjected to a compulsory purchase order.
Re:No. by Builder · 2011-10-10 21:13 · Score: 1

You're closer to correct than most people here. Trespassing in Scotland is a little harder to use for this, but instead of doing him for trespassing, they can arrest him using public order type acts for something like causing a public disturbance.
You see, the mall is private ground, so they get ALL of the benefits of controlling what people can do, because they're private. But as soon as *they* need the law, it becomes a public nuisance and the law steps in to help.
Best of both worlds.
Re:No. by beelsebob · 2011-10-10 22:09 · Score: 1

the Law is DIFFERENT in Scotland you know........ because we have a separate and distinct legal system.
Yes we do.

while you are correct in saying that they might be able to stop you taking a pic there's no chance that a security muppet from a private firm has any rights to confiscate your property..
Agreed, but then other stories I've read on this have said he didn't try to confiscate it, he tried to get them to delete the photo.
Re:No. by Pax681 · 2011-10-10 22:14 · Score: 1

even at that bud, i'd tell the guy to jam it
i doubt there's very much he could do about it and if he did try he'd most probably be breaking the law in some way ;)
Re:No. by xelah · 2011-10-10 22:19 · Score: 1

There's a distinction between private property which is a private place, private property which is a public place and public property. There are things you can legally do in private places which you can't in public places regardless of your ownership (such as drive a car whilst drunk), and things you can't prohibit even on private land (such as access to public rights of way). It isn't remotely unreasonable to impose additional restrictions on what owners can prohibit in places which function as public spaces. Build something which is an extension of the public streets then expect it to become a bit like one. (And even when you do have the right to make the rules it doesn't stop everyone else ridiculing you in the media for doing the wrong thing and being an arsehole).
Re:No. by AmonTheMetalhead · 2011-10-10 22:25 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm not saying I agree with the mall owner, but that according to the law, he can and has the right to ask you to leave. That's the only right he has. I'm clarifying this solely to inform people of their rights, if you are ever caught in this situation, they do not have the right to confiscate your camera nor can they demand you delete your pictures.
Re:No. by julesh · 2011-10-11 00:04 · Score: 3, Informative

"Causing a public disturbance" isn't actually a criminal offence, at least not in Scotland. The closest I'm aware of is "behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress", but I suspect it would be quite hard to prove in this case. Particularly as the police have recently received guidance that people being offensive to them isn't in actual fact likely to cause them distress, because accepting offense is part of their job...
A common-law "breach of the peace" may also qualify, but in order for that to be proved, the offender must be shown to have threatened damage to person or property (or behaved such that a reasonable person believed they were under threat) whereas it was actually the centre owner who was threatening damage to property by trying to delete the pictures.
Like England and Wales, trespass (by itself) is not a criminal offence in Scotland, so you cannot be arrested for trespass. You can be required to leave, and you can be required to rectify any damage caused by your trespassing, but you cannot be arrested for it. There are exceptions: trespass on crown land, "encamping", and so on, but none would apply here.
Causing a public disturbance *is* grounds to issue an ASBO, so the photographer needs to watch out he doesn't get one of those. If he does, repeating the behaviour *would* be a criminal offence. But without actually issuing the order before the behaviour occurs, this is irrelevant from the point of view of arresting/prosecuting him.
So, no, I don't think they had a legal leg to stand on.
Above is not legal advice. I'm not a lawyer, nor Scottish, but do take an interest in these things.
Re:No. by Kurlon · 2011-10-11 00:14 · Score: 0

Actually, (In the US anyways) you can be nailed for DUI even on private property. Even if it's not a car but a lawn tractor...
Re:No. by maxwell+demon · 2011-10-11 00:29 · Score: 1

while you are correct in saying that they might be able to stop you taking a pic there's no chance that a security muppet from a private firm has any rights to confiscate your property.. in Scotland that would theft along with "wilful deprivation of property"
Now what would have been hilarious would be if that man taking a photo had actually been a policeman, the security man would have the camera taken away, and then the policeman would have taken out his police badge and said "you are hereby arrested for theft of a mobile phone ..."

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 01:14 · Score: 0

Grade received: F
Malls are private property, not public.
The owner can set rules. They are not 'laws', but they can ask you to leave and have you arrested for trespass if you don't.
Re:No. by Builder · 2011-10-11 01:23 · Score: 1

I got my terms wrong, but basically, breach of the peace applies here because the centre did not act on its own volition. A member of staff of the ice cream stand is the one who called security. As such, the police can act based on the fact that this person was concerned / threatened enough to call the law :(
Re:No. by metacell · 2011-10-11 06:00 · Score: 1

Despite what cops (or pompous property owners) say, photography is not a crime. They can neither confiscate your camera nor make you delete the photos.
Of course, that only applies to the US; YMMV but I expect most countries are very similar.
Same thing in Sweden. Moreover, locations like malls and workplaces count as public spaces (even if they're privately owned), and the owner / security guards can't physically force someone to leave once they've let them in. They have to call the police to do it for them. You can, however, physically evict someone from your private home even if you previously invited them.
Re:No. by v1 · 2011-10-11 06:22 · Score: 2

in the UK, which this is, the owner is entirely at their liberty to say whether or not you can take a photo.
Not quite. Small difference. They have no right to force you to do or not do something, but they can demand that you leave if you refuse their requests. And they certainly can't demand your property. (such as take your camera) or demand your actions (such as delete photos taken) Short summary: you don't lose any of your rights simply because you're on someone else's property. BUT being ON their property is a privilege, one that they can rescind at any time, for any reason, including breaking their "house rules".

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:No. by Hognoxious · 2011-10-11 09:31 · Score: 1

However, that doesn't make taking photographs illegal. That requires a breach of criminal law, which is a matter for the police, not some fat minimum wage illegal immigrant who failed the exam to work at McDonald's. As a cleaner.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:No. by Hognoxious · 2011-10-11 09:48 · Score: 1

Are you a policeman?
No
Then call one.
I have the right to confiscate your camera
No you don't.. Attempt to do so and/or to touch me, and I will regard it as attempted robbery/assault. I will defend myself and my property to the full extent allowed by law. And when or if you get out of hospital, I will sue you, your employer and your cat.
I have the right to confiscate your camera
Since you aren't prepared to call the police, I will. Hello? Police? Yes, I've got some monkey with a walkie talkie who claims to be one of you. He's threatening me [start walking towards an exit]
Stay right there [stands in your way] ... and he's detaining me unlawfully. That's wrongful imprisonment, right? How many years?
Security guards are all little Hitlers. Face up to them and they shit themselves. You might find one or two who think they're hard, but if they do anything an inch beyond their powers those places are full of CCTV cameras. Enjoy your windfall.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:No. by WorBlux · 2011-10-11 12:56 · Score: 1

Pretty much, it is a publicly accessible area, and as such there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Unless somebody does something against criminal law, the most you can do is ask them to leave. If they don't, well that's trespassing and is against criminal law.
Re:No. by WorBlux · 2011-10-11 13:01 · Score: 1

No really a fee simple title requires a fuedal lord; an oath of allegiance to a flesh a blood person.. I believe the calvin case is relavent here. In fides non ficta.
Re:No. by WorBlux · 2011-10-11 13:09 · Score: 1

No the wording of it is such that it is not actually contingent on weather someone was distressed but weather it was likely to cause distress. I.e would a reasonable person become distressed.
Re:No. by AmonTheMetalhead · 2011-10-11 19:11 · Score: 1

What part of "the only thing he can legally do is ask you to leave the premises" isn't clear?

Private property. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 16:26 · Score: 0

If you don't like it, tell all the vendors inside the mall why the infringement on your personal liberties is keeping you from patronizing their businesses.

Re:Private property. by Frosty+Piss · 2011-10-10 17:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sure, I understand what you're saying. And if enough people did it, it *might* make a difference. Except that most people, especially the kind who shop at "the mall" simply don't care.
I mean, how do you think we in the so-called freedom loving first world countries got to where we are, essentially a collection of Fascist police states?
People are selfish children who care mostly about flashy toys, and as long as we get our flashy toys at prices only sweat-shop workers can produce, we're a happy lot!
In other words, most of us simply don't give a rip.
Sad, but true.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Re:Private property. by rtfa-troll · 2011-10-10 17:44 · Score: 2

If you don't like it, tell all the vendors inside the mall why the infringement on your personal liberties is keeping you from patronizing their businesses.
It looks like people have. Never let anyone say we are powerless. Now the question is, how can we arrange a boycott of the police force???

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Private property. by sjames · 2011-10-10 17:59 · Score: 5, Informative

Interesting that you say that! It seems there was a fair sized protest on Facebook (and presumably email). From that page:

Further to the previous statement Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC have confirmed that they will be changing the photography policy at the 11 directly owned centres and that at the other 3 centres, which owned in partnership with other companies, they will be discussing with their partners the policy change and recommending that it be adopted.

As you will have seen Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC have issued a formal apology and said that they have changed their policy on photographs and will allow family and friends to take photographs. I do intend to keep the dialogue going with Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC and clarify that this aplies across all of 14 of their shopping centres including The Trafford Centre and Lakeside.
I don't know how many people participated, but it seems to have been enough.
Re:Private property. by Grishnakh · 2011-10-11 05:09 · Score: 1

The problem with this stuff is that these no-photography policies are just that: policies. Malls are private property, so if you violate their policy, they only have one legal option: ask you to leave. They can't confiscate your equipment, in fact they can't lay one hand on you without being guilty of assault, and you would be within your rights to use force against any mall employee that attempts to restrain you. If they don't want you having that photo, they only have one legal option: they have to sue you in civil court and get an injunction to make you delete the photo (good luck enforcing that and making sure you never copied it anywhere), or just suing for "damages" (good luck convincing a judge that the mall was economically harmed by your photo).
The disturbing part here is that an actual police officer apparently was in on this, and saying that taking these photos was a "crime". That cop needs to be fired and blacklisted so they can never work as a cop again. Corporate policies are not laws, and they can't be enforced as such. When we do, then we have officially become a fascist country.
Re:Private property. by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2011-10-11 06:16 · Score: 1

in fact they can't lay one hand on you without being guilty of assault, and you would be within your rights to use force against any mall employee that attempts to restrain you.
Sadly, no.

--
FGD 135
Re:Private property. by sjames · 2011-10-11 06:17 · Score: 1

Fully agreed. I was only objecting to the claim that people would just roll over on this one when I knew that public action had already overturned the polivy in at least the one case.
Re:Private property. by Grishnakh · 2011-10-11 06:28 · Score: 1

Holy crap, the UK is really insane. They say we're crazy for owning guns, but security guards (a.k.a. "thugs") are allowed to murder suspected shoplifters over a bottle of aftershave?
Over here, the security guard would likely go to jail for homicide (depending on the facts of the case), would be sued for everything he owned, and his employer would (rightfully) be sued as well. Only agents of the state (i.e. cops) have a right to preemptively use force; for private citizens (which includes security guards), you're only allowed to use force if you reasonably believe your life or safety is in danger, and no, simple theft from a store doesn't qualify for that.
Re:Private property. by WorBlux · 2011-10-11 13:14 · Score: 1

That's simple, stop paying taxes. Not easy mind you, but simple.
Re:Private property. by Pseudonym+Authority · 2011-10-11 15:34 · Score: 1

Yeah, that'll stop people from being questioned under the Anti-Terror Law of 23562 or some shit. Did you read more than the first paragraph of the fucking article?

When photography is outlawed.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 16:27 · Score: 2

only outlaws will have still cameras.

And the state will have video cameras.
Everywhere.

Long live privacy!

Re:When photography is outlawed.... by Pooua · 2011-10-10 16:58 · Score: 4, Informative

Ironically, Britain is said to have more state-operated cameras than anywhere else on Earth (but it still cannot solve 80% of its crimes). It seems that the more cameras the state uses, the fewer it allows ordinary citizens to use. This may be a manifestation of a psychiatric illness on the part of the some administrators, who have placed cameras into a god-like position that only they are allowed to officiate.

--
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by justforgetme · 2011-10-10 17:01 · Score: 1

Orwell? That you old fella?

--
-- no sig today
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by AHuxley · 2011-10-10 17:51 · Score: 5, Informative

Re UK: "London Street Photography Festival" - fun to see how many thought public property was also mall like :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJH9F7Hcluo

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by gmack · 2011-10-10 18:01 · Score: 2, Informative

You think that's bad? Just go into your local Walmart with a pen and paper and start writing prices down and time how long it takes them to stick security on you. I have just discovered that Tesco has the same policy.
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by koogydelbbog · 2011-10-10 20:59 · Score: 1

there was a reply in the letters pages the following week from a boss at tescos saying that there is no such policy...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2011/sep/16/tesco-shopping-supermarket-prices-check-writing?commentpage=4#comment-12473653
and besides they publish all their prices online. the fact that they are different from the prices in the shops and different between individual shops appears to have passed him by. i bet he shops in waitrose...
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 21:38 · Score: 0

...build hidden cameras into your hat, eyeglasses, and shoulder strap. Walk around and photograph everything and everyone. Post.
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 21:58 · Score: 1

So this is a repost of a rant I had about Tesco last week, the comments on cam.misc are still going on. I am boycotting them for the foreseeable future. And yes I know paracetamol poising is a horrible way to kill yourself.
I wanted to buy some anti-histamines and some painkillers so I ended up buying three tins of chocolates 6 packs of anti-histamines and two packets of paracetamol and two packets of ibuprofen. I did try to buy some more but something happened....
I was using a self service register and they always annoy. So someone came over when I put the third pain killer though the till and theysaid I wasn’t allowed to buy more than two painkillers in a single transaction. So I completed that transaction and started another one for the next two packets. I completed that and had started another when I was told that I was not allowed to buy any more. I asked why and they said it was company policy.
Basically I ended up being surrounded by the manager for the checkouts, the deputy manger for the store and a security guard. And they wouldn’t let me leave the store with the medicines I had bought, they kept on saying it was against company policy. When the store manager turned up I started recording this on my ipod, I told them I was doing this and they told me to stop because of company policy I refused. I was really shaking and felt very intimidated and unwell I also left my card in the card reader I was so shaken. I have about 10 minutes of audio where they will not let me leave the store with the items I had purchased. I did ask them to ring the police when the said they really were not going to let me out of the shop with the medicines I had bought. Eventually the manager said it was the medicines act and I think he said 1998 but I can only find an 1968 medicines act which googling implies that it limits the drugs that shops which are not pharmacies
are allowed to sell. I did then give him the extra packets of paracetamol and ibuprofen but refused a refund as I just wanted to leave the shop. This has really shaken myself and my 10 year old son who was with me up.
Even if I wasn’t allowed to buy the medicines are they allowed to stop me from leaving the building ? I did pop into the police station later in the day to ask if they were allowed to detain me and they said it was a civil mater. I also asked the police if Tesco had rung them and they refused to answer.
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 22:45 · Score: 0

Ironically, Britain is said to have more state-operated cameras than anywhere else on Earth (but it still cannot solve 80% of its crimes). It seems that the more cameras the state uses, the fewer it allows ordinary citizens to use. This may be a manifestation of a psychiatric illness on the part of the some administrators, who have placed cameras into a god-like position that only they are allowed to officiate.
That's a great point. --See, that's a correct usage of "ironic".
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by Vanders · 2011-10-10 23:30 · Score: 1

Restricting you to two packs (32 tablets) is fairly standard in the UK: you'll find that Asda, Sainsburys and pretty much every other supermarket will have a similar policy. As much as I hate Yahoo! Answers, check the answer from "lozzielaws". The important bit is:

In the UK, there is no law as such, but the maxumum amount as per the Medicines And Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency over the counter is 100. Anything over that requires a prescription. They also recommend a maximum of 32 be sold over the counter as standard practice, and most shops and pharmacies stick to this.
So while it's possible they could have handled the situation better (I have no idea, we only have your version of events), they were probably concerned that may have been breaking the law.

--
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by JoeMerchant · 2011-10-11 00:02 · Score: 1

WalMart prices can vary by a factor of more than 2x between isolated rural and competitive urban stores separated by less than 40 miles...
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by JoeMerchant · 2011-10-11 00:07 · Score: 1

I was busted for this in a US post office in 2004 (I wanted proof of what was inside a certified letter I was sending...), you could tell the Postmaster knew she was stepping in sticky territory, but she wasn't satisfied until I showed her the pictures were deleted from the camera. In 2004, the notion of a digital camera was a little exotic to postal workers.
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 00:30 · Score: 0

The UK is run by statists that want to control every aspect of your life. The Obama administration wants to do the same in the US. Such policies don't work in Britain; why does anyone think they would work here?
Want to live your life under government rule? Go to the UK.
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 00:48 · Score: 0

That is funny considering how they go around with electronic scanning devices to competitor's stores to record their prices.
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 02:53 · Score: 0

They couldn't sell you all that medicine for legal reasons. 'Company policy' was just a poor choice of words on their part. If you have a problem with it, you'd have to complain to an MP mate. However I think anti-histamines can be used in the manufacture of drugs (meth?) so there is sound reasoning behind all this. The store would also be in big trouble if you were suicidal (how are they supposed to know?) and bought enough medicine to kill yourself.
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by moggie_xev · 2011-10-11 03:49 · Score: 1

So I thought I had posted this but obviously I had not. This happened on the 10th of October this year at the Fulborn Tesco in Cambridge. I will not be shopping at Tesco for the foreseeable future
I wanted to buy some anti-histamines and some painkillers so I ended up buying three tins of chocolates 6 packs of anti-histamines and two packets of paracetamol and two packets of ibuprofen. I did try to buy some more but something happened....
I was using a self service register and they always annoy. So someone came over when I put the third pain killer though the till and they said I wasn’t allowed to buy more than two painkillers in a single transaction. So I completed that transaction and started another one for the next two packets. I completed that and had started another when I was told that I was not allowed to buy any more. I asked why and they said it was company policy.
Basically I ended up being surrounded by the manager for the checkouts, the deputy manger for the store and a security guard. And they wouldn’t let me leave the store with the medicines I had bought, they kept on saying it was against company policy. When the store manager turned up I started recording this on my ipod, I told them I was doing this and they told me to stop because of company policy I refused. I was really shaking and felt very intimidated and unwell I also left my card in the card reader I was so shaken. I have about 10 minutes of audio where they will not let me leave the store with the items I had purchased. I did ask them to ring the police when the said they really were not going to let me out of the shop with the medicines I had bought. Eventually the manager said it was the medicines act and I think he said 1998 but I can only find an 1968 medicines act which googling implies that it limits the drugs that shops which are not pharmacies are allowed to sell. I did then give him the extra packets of paracetamol and ibuprofen but refused a refund as I just wanted to leave the shop. This has really shaken myself and my 10 year old son who was with me up.
Even if I wasn’t allowed to buy the medicines are they allowed to stop me from leaving the building ? I did pop into the police station later in the day to ask if they were allowed to detain me and they said it was a civil mater. I also asked the police if Tesco had rung them and they refused to answer.
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 03:50 · Score: 0

only outlaws will have still cameras.
And the state will have video cameras.
Everywhere.
Long live privacy!
So if you live in the US.. get the ACLU to sue the Mall for violating the law/rules against photography in the Mall.. lets make everyone
play by the same rules .. I can't take your picture.. fine you can't take mine either :-)
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by gmack · 2011-10-11 04:40 · Score: 1

I imagine it's some rule to keep antihistamines from being turned into street drugs that ended up far too restrictive than what it was designed for.
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by HermMunster · 2011-10-11 05:03 · Score: 1

It is not illegal. That generally means that it is against the law. The photo taking is not against the law. What they do is stretch other laws to cover it. So, the Mall ownership may say that you can't. But then you do. That means you are in violation of their policy. If they don't like it and you don't stop they tell you to get out. If you don't get out then it becomes trespass.
Using the term illegal means that someone broke a criminal law. Civil law does not cover criminal action.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by Grishnakh · 2011-10-11 05:13 · Score: 1

The Obama administration wants to do the same in the US.
Any Republican administration that gets elected in 2012 will be the same. Any other Democratic President (except maybe Kucinich) would probably be the same as Obama. There is no difference between the two parties.
Such policies don't work in Britain; why does anyone think they would work here?
What makes you think these policies "don't work"? Obviously, they're working for someone, or else these policies wouldn't exist. No, they're not helping the average citizen much, but who cares about them? What's important is the corporations and their executives, so if this policy helps them, then it's by definition "successful", and their paid lackeys in government will go along with them.
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by HermMunster · 2011-10-11 05:18 · Score: 1

You could have taken it as a violation of fee speech. Since she was a government employee she violated the Constitution by forcing you to delete the photos. There should be a law that says that when a government employee violates the Constitution it becomes a crime.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by alannon · 2011-10-11 06:28 · Score: 1

The USPS is not actually a government agency and its employees are not actually civil servants.
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by Kittenman · 2011-10-11 09:25 · Score: 1

... fee speech. ....
Fee speech. I know that's a typo but that's really very good. +1 Insightful

--
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2011-10-11 10:03 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, your sentence doesn't have a subject, so I'm not sure who you think may have broken the law. But if the self-service doohickeys have caused the store to sell him more paracetamol than it should have, isn't that the store's problem? It seems highly doubtful that it entitles the store manager to prevent the customer leaving, and deprive them of goods which are now theirs.

--
FGD 135
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by Bxer99 · 2011-10-11 22:11 · Score: 1

Ironically, Britain is said to have more state-operated cameras than anywhere else on Earth (but it still cannot solve 80% of its crimes). It seems that the more cameras the state uses, the fewer it allows ordinary citizens to use. This may be a manifestation of a psychiatric illness on the part of the some administrators, who have placed cameras into a god-like position that only they are allowed to officiate.
They can outlaw it all they want. I've been making videos and stills in public places for several years now using nicely concealed cameras; good, sharp face-to-face dialogues with sales people, police and security guards in high def. They can never catch up with anyone who really wants to record this stuff without getting caught.
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by Vanders · 2011-10-11 22:33 · Score: 1

But if the self-service doohickeys have caused the store to sell him more paracetamol than it should have, isn't that the store's problem? The self service tills will stop you buying more than two packs at a time. He admits he went back and bought the rest of them in a separate trip through the till, so the self service till couldn't do much to stop him. So yes, it was the store's problem, which is why they stopped him!

Unfortunately, your sentence doesn't have a subject
There are precisely two subjects under discussion: the guy buying the drugs, and the store. The context seems pretty obvious from where I'm sat.

--
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2011-10-12 05:41 · Score: 1

I meant subject in a grammatical sense.

So while it's possible they could have handled the situation better (I have no idea, we only have your version of events), they were probably concerned that [there should be a word here] may have been breaking the law.

--
FGD 135
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by Ol+Olsoc · 2011-10-12 12:22 · Score: 1

In the good old days, back in 1982, I was working on a school assignment in my photography class. This particular project was me shooting photos at the local mall. During the second week, a guard approached me, and asked me to quit taking photos. I explained that it was for an art class. He told me that he wasn't sure at that point, so why don't I talk to the manager. I sat with her, and she explained that they just wanted to protect their customers privacy, and since it was private property, it could be a little messy in a liability manner if I caused customers a legal problem.
I noted that I understood, and wouldn't take anymore photos inside the mall.
The slashdot "freedom to do what ever I want in whatever place I want to do it" crowd is just off base about this one.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:When photography is outlawed.... by KingBenny · 2011-10-16 00:22 · Score: 1

on her majesty's service, protecting you from yourself, no matter the cost. I had this strange occurrence not too long ago. When i went to a concert i couldn't take my camera inside, but everyone with a 5mpixel phone could ...?!? Do i need some secret handshake to join this society or do i absolutely have to buy one?

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?

Oh you know Britain by makubesu · 2011-10-10 16:27 · Score: 4, Funny

they're so into this privacy thing, they barely have cameras anywhere.

Re:Oh you know Britain by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 19:22 · Score: 0

Clearly you no nothing about Britain.
This was an abuse of the "anti terrorsim" laws introduced by the last government run by Blair. The law is actually that you CAN take photos anywhere that is "public" and only when you take photos on or into private property does the law intervene.
Re:Oh you know Britain by stupid_is · 2011-10-10 20:50 · Score: 2

Actually, it's along the lines of "you can take photos in public places, except for some places which we won't tell you about, and if we think you're up to no good" - guidance here. But the courts and MPs have been eroding this power over the last couple of years such that the savvy journo should be able to argue rings around any jobsworth copper trying to lean on them for taking photos.

--
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
Re:Oh you know Britain by Chris+Mattern · 2011-10-11 01:29 · Score: 1

Actually, it's along the lines of "you can take photos in public places, except for some places which we won't tell you about, and if we think you're up to no good"
A mall/shopping center is not a public place. It's not illegal to take photos there, but the owner can have policies against it and make you leave if you break them (and if you don't, *then* you're breaking the law--not by taking photos, but by trespassing).
Re:Oh you know Britain by SethJohnson · 2011-10-11 03:00 · Score: 1

Please mod this up. The parent post succinctly explains the true legality behind shooting photos on private property.

Seth

--
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!

Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by xstonedogx · 2011-10-10 16:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

A spokesperson for Braehead said it wanted to "maintain a safe and enjoyable environment" for shoppers.

There is literally nothing I enjoy more than to have a security guard and the police question me in front of my small child when all I was doing was minding my own business.

Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by gandhi_2 · 2011-10-10 16:36 · Score: 4, Funny

Minding your own business?
All the art work on commercial packaging in the shopping center are copyrighted designs! You really think you can get away with copyright violations?
You sir, are worse than Hitler!

--
THL phish sticks
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by amiga3D · 2011-10-10 16:45 · Score: 1

Love that sig
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by amiga3D · 2011-10-10 16:52 · Score: 1

It seems pretty simple to me. It's their store and if they don't want me taking pictures there I can either just not do it or I can tell them to kiss my ass and leave and never go back. I think it would depend on how they presented it to me. I don't know about the UK but around here there are bunches of stores. I've written a couple off my list and apparently I wasn't the only one. Both stores went tits up after a few years of treating their customers like crap, if you piss off your customers you can't stay in business long unless you're Microsoft.
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 17:09 · Score: 0

That would be the night I ended up in jail for assaulting a security guard. That would show my kid that freedom is worth fighting for and to stick it to the man!
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 17:21 · Score: 0

Regulations simply don't exist. Just take your business elsewhere...
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by Taco+Cowboy · 2011-10-10 17:43 · Score: 1

That would be the night I ended up in jail for assaulting a security guard. That would show my kid that freedom is worth fighting for and to stick it to the man!
That would also be the same night your kid saw you being beaten to pulp by a bunch of security guards, and then being tasered by the police..

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 18:28 · Score: 0

no problem there - Microsoft seems on the down, Apple is the new "I'll treat you like shit because you need what I've got"
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 20:14 · Score: 0

Can't speak for this particular store myself, but some of the commentors on the BBC thread claim there are no visible signs prohibiting photography.
My understanding is that this is a mall, i.e. private land - therefore the owners are free to set rules on photography, eating & drinking, congregation, and pretty much anything that isn't covered by statutory rights. However any such constraints should be communicated to the public near the entrances.
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by Pieroxy · 2011-10-10 20:14 · Score: 1

The funny thing about Apple is that mostly, people complaining are not Apple users.
With Microsoft it is different because we're all more or less users of their software, or users of crap produced by their software.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by Pieroxy · 2011-10-10 20:15 · Score: 1

That would be the night I ended up in jail for assaulting a security guard. That would show my kid that freedom is worth fighting for and to stick it to the man!
That would also be the same night your kid saw you being beaten to pulp by a bunch of security guards, and then being tasered by the police..
Great memories, I tell you.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by sosume · 2011-10-10 21:49 · Score: 1

Yeah, Apple is really great. Ask my blind nephew how he's going to operate his phone or mp3 player in the post-jobs era. It just works, huh?
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by mcgrew · 2011-10-10 22:42 · Score: 1

if you piss off your customers you can't stay in business long unless you're Microsoft.
A couple of things -- first, if that's so why is Sony still in business? Secondly, you're not MS's customer unless you bought Windows or office in a box -- the company that manufactured the computer is, and MS isn't pissing them off.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 00:18 · Score: 0

Most ironic nick in relation to posted comment... ever.
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by Grizzley9 · 2011-10-11 00:27 · Score: 1

Yeah, Apple is really great. Ask my blind nephew how he's going to operate his phone or mp3 player in the post-jobs era. It just works, huh?
There are numerous accessibility features in iPods and iPhones, even for the blind. The latest being Siri and a blind person was even featured in the intro video about it. The fact that you don't know about them just makes you ignorant, but that's ok b/c ignorant people can usually still learn.
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by Karma's+A+Bitch · 2011-10-11 00:27 · Score: 1

You, sir, are worse than Hitler!

FTFY
-- a grammar Nazi
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 00:59 · Score: 0

Watch it with the Hitler references, or you, too, will have your song removed from the Monday Night Football opening credits chicagotribue.com
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by justin12345 · 2011-10-11 02:31 · Score: 1

My policy was always to just ignore the guards, and avoid escalating the situation, while still getting my images.

In the US, shopping mall security guards can escort you from the premises, so long as you go willingly. In some cases they technically can use force, but the legal liability in doing so is immense. Generally they have to call the police. It's not a universal rule that they will not use force, but most employers specifically instruct them not to, as a shopping center just looks like a big fat check to lawyer.

I used to do fine art photography, and I was always taken aback at how crazy shopping malls (in particular) are about their no photography policies. This was way before 9/11 and the hysteria that anyone with a camera must be casing the joint to blow it up. I can't count the number of times I was approached by security guards wanting to confiscate my film. Luckily I did some research after the first time, and refused to comply thereafter.

The guards definitely cannot confiscate anything, that's again the police's job. Whether or not the guards will know or care is another issue. These guys didn't get their jobs by getting strait-A report cards in high school.

Without getting too off-topic, most people would be surprised at how easy this system makes it to shoplift. Employees at most stores are specifically told to never attempt to apprehend a shop lifter. Back in college I knew a guy who's moral compass didn't exactly point full north. His "hobby" was to see how much he could steal any given day. He didn't mug anyone, he wasn't violent, but he did quite a bit of shoplifting. His crowning achievement was to steal a desktop computer from CompUSA using a forged receipt. Of course, the door guy checking receipts can't stop you either, but he can take down you license plate number and call the cops.

--
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by StuartHankins · 2011-10-11 02:43 · Score: 1

Apple has a very very good track record for accessibility. It's present throughout the OS, and it's present on iPods. The second link discusses how to use these settings and features in detail, from a blind user's perspective.

http://www.apple.com/accessibility/itunes/vision.html
http://www.nillabyte.com/entry.php?280-Accessibility-For-iPhone-And-iPod-touch-A-Blind-User-s-Review
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-10-11 04:30 · Score: 1

Minding your own business?
All the art work on commercial packaging in the shopping center are copyrighted designs! You really think you can get away with copyright violations?
You sir, are worse than Hitler!
I don't know about Hitler, but it's "photo terrorism" to be sure. ;-)
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by amiga3D · 2011-10-11 05:06 · Score: 1

I'm just curious about this. What does your college buddy do for a living nowadays?
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by justin12345 · 2011-10-11 05:13 · Score: 1

He owns a coffee shop and works part time for a charity. I guess he got all his hooliganism out of his system when he was young.

--
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by amiga3D · 2011-10-11 05:45 · Score: 1

Coolness. I'm glad to hear he turned it around. I knew people that shoplifted just for the challenge, the rush they got from it. I used to berate one friend for it telling him he was an idiot stealing junk he didn't need and could easily afford. I'd never go in a store with him.
Re:Won't Somebody Please Think of the Shoppers? by tompaulco · 2011-10-11 06:10 · Score: 1

Watch it with the Hitler references, or you, too, will have your song removed from the Monday Night Football opening credits chicagotribue.com [chicagotribune.com]
Hank wasn't comparing anybody to Hitler at all. He was just making a statement that two people who hate each others policies very much going golfing is like Hitler going golfing with Netanyahu.
Anybody who thinks he was comparing Obama to Hitler is just an idiot looking for an excuse to be offended by something. I hope Hank sues for wrongful termination and wins millions.
As a protest to this, and also because football is extremely boring to watch, I will continue to not watch Monday night Football.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.

haha by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 16:30 · Score: 0

aahahhahahhaaaha

In Soviet Russia by Roachie · 2011-10-10 16:31 · Score: 1

Shopping center take picture of YOU!

--
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.

Re:In Soviet Russia by Pooua · 2011-10-10 17:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Funny, but the real irony is, how many pictures do you supposed the British government got of this man when he walked into this establishment?

--
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Re:In Soviet Russia by justforgetme · 2011-10-10 17:05 · Score: 1

Ohh, that happens in the rest of the world also Michail ;-)

--
-- no sig today
Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 17:27 · Score: 1

I won't tell for the Soviet Russia, but in modern Russia it's pretty legitimate to make photos in shopping centres. (http://www.antirao.ru/faq/nophoto)
Re:In Soviet Russia by s7uar7 · 2011-10-10 19:44 · Score: 3, Informative

The British government? None. Private CCTV on the other hand, yes, very probably, but that's not unusual in a shopping mall in any country.
Re:In Soviet Russia by Roachie · 2011-10-11 08:34 · Score: 1

Shit... thats right... lemme try again.
In Soviet Russia ... Shopping centers on illegal photos!

--
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.

Is drawing also illegal? by paulsnx2 · 2011-10-10 16:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

What about writing in your journal?

How about making a phone call? After all, someone could hear what is going on in the background.

How about closed circuit T.V.? The U.K is famous for having cameras everywhere. Isn't that a privacy issue?

How much of our ability to record the events in our lives is illegal under this logic, and subject to confiscation?

What if we just remember what we had for lunch? That could be terrible. Can we tweet about what we see? Is it okay to post a description of who you see at the mall?

Re:Is drawing also illegal? by Fluffeh · 2011-10-10 16:42 · Score: 3, Informative

I agree with you, and suggest that you head on over to the (ugh, Facebook) protest campaign and if you have a FB account, add your vote/click/support etc.

--
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Re:Is drawing also illegal? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 20:25 · Score: 0

You remind me that I've - for a long time - felt that vulnerable people (frail elderly or people with disabilities, who live or happen to be alone when someone comes to their door, rings their home phone, breaks in, etc.) should have EVERY right to record these Life-events, eg, in case their words are misquoted or misinterpreted (eg, to be ordering a product or service; or inviting a stranger into their home, who might steal small objects, etc. while there).
Moreover, such recordings should - in such cases - be admissible, to at least some degree, as evidence at Law.
Having the right to record & to be free to use the resulting recordings to defend or to assist Prosecution, if someone commits a crime while with or near them, can much more effective (AND humane) than having a weapon at hand...)
Re:Is drawing also illegal? by burris · 2011-10-10 23:53 · Score: 1

Thats why in California, for instance, the trespassing law doesn't allow the operators of businesses open to the public to kick people out for taking a photograph, making a phone call, writing down prices, etc...

(a) Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner or agent of a business establishment open to the public, by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on business, or their customers, and who refuses to leave the premises of the business establishment after being requested to leave by the owner or the owner's agent, or by a peace officer acting at the request of the owner or owner's agent, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to 90 days, or by a fine of up to four hundred dollars ($400), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
[...]
(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law.
(2) Any person on the premises who is engaging in activities protected by the California Constitution or the United States Constitution.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to supersede the
application of any other law.
California's constitution provides affirmative protection of people's right to free speech, unlike the US constitution which simply prohibits congress (and the states) from passing laws infringing upon it.
Re:Is drawing also illegal? by JoeMerchant · 2011-10-11 00:17 · Score: 2

I had a regulator once tell me (in the role of VP of R&D) that I might have to fire my software team and hire an new one to develop the product under proper regulations, since the current team couldn't be trusted to not copy their "unregulated" work. He was about 22, straight out of regulator training school, he was also talking to the whole software development team (me.) We managed to get past that little bump, but the implication was that mere exposure to the "illegally developed code" was enough to taint any further code developed by the same people - no copies of source, no pictures, no sketches, just a memory crime.
Somewhat related was a non-compete I was asked to sign that essentially banned me from working in the entire industry for a period of 7 years after severance. They said "that's not what we mean," I said "that's what's written on the contract I'm not signing," they said "all of our other employees signed this," I said "that's not my concern." They amended the contract.
Re:Is drawing also illegal? by Syberz · 2011-10-11 01:03 · Score: 1

Hey you! Yeah you, with the common sense! Get outta here! Can't you see we're making laws to protect the people here?!

--
~Syberz
Re:Is drawing also illegal? by Ihmhi · 2011-10-11 02:39 · Score: 1

They said "that's not what we mean," I said "that's what's written on the contract I'm not signing," they said "all of our other employees signed this," I said "that's not my concern." They amended the contract.
Unfortunately, today that conversation would end, "All of our other employees signed this, and if you don't want to we have a hundred equally qualified people lined up to take the position".

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:Is drawing also illegal? by chocolatetrumpet · 2011-10-11 02:44 · Score: 1

I said "that's not my concern." They amended the contract.
Most people are too desperate for food & housing to risk such demands.

--
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Re:Is drawing also illegal? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 04:08 · Score: 0

What about writing in your journal?
Not if the owner doesn't want you to.

How about making a phone call? After all, someone could hear what is going on in the background.
Good point. Maybe you should check with the owner of the mall.

How about closed circuit T.V.? The U.K is famous for having cameras everywhere. Isn't that a privacy issue?
Not unless they were put there by the owner.

How much of our ability to record the events in our lives is illegal under this logic, and subject to confiscation?
Not a whole lot, but don't let that stop you from having a knee-jerk reaction. As long as you're in public, it's probably no illegal, but then again, it depends upon what country you're in. To be safe, maybe you should check with the owner of the store, since it is his/her property.

What if we just remember what we had for lunch? That could be terrible. Can we tweet about what we see? Is it okay to post a description of who you see at the mall?
I don't see why not, but maybe you should check with the owner.
Anyway, onto your main point . . . umm . . . uhhh . . . so, what's your point?
Re:Is drawing also illegal? by md65536 · 2011-10-11 05:02 · Score: 1

Yes, all of those things are illegal. Or they should be.
Here's a modest proposal for a good mall policy:
"Entrance to the mall is conditionally granted only for the express purpose of purchasing items. Any other activity is forbidden and will be considered trespassing. Browsing for items you have no immediate intention of purchasing is forbidden. A minimum value of purchases per minute in the mall will be strictly enforced, and shoppers who have not exceeded the minimum spending will be charged a compensatory fee and/or have an equal value in personal items or clothing confiscated from their person until the minimum is met. By entering mall property (including parking area) you agree to this EULA."
Re:Is drawing also illegal? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 05:24 · Score: 0

I said "that's not my concern." They amended the contract.
Most people are too desperate for food & housing to risk such demands.
One of the many benefits of seeking a new job while you still have your existing one.
Re:Is drawing also illegal? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 05:54 · Score: 0

What if we just remember what we had for lunch? That could be terrible. Can we tweet about what we see? Is it okay to post a description of who you see at the mall?
Well, apparently tweeting is an obligation
Just be careful on what you say. And of course don't use BlackBerry for tweeting. It's only for rioters and terrorists.
Re:Is drawing also illegal? by PoopMonkey · 2011-10-11 07:56 · Score: 1

Make sure you post that EULA in the bathroom.
Re:Is drawing also illegal? by seantide · 2011-10-13 09:33 · Score: 1

They said "that's not what we mean," I said "that's what's written on the contract I'm not signing," they said "all of our other employees signed this," I said "that's not my concern." They amended the contract.
Unfortunately, today that conversation would end, "All of our other employees signed this, and if you don't want to we have a hundred equally qualified people lined up to take the position".
Not necessarily. In Virginia for example we have anti-coercion laws. Basically you can claim needing a job as meaning you signed under coercion and the contract isn't worth the ink used for signing it.
I know because I've gone through it and the company in question was powerless. I am fairly certain a lot of states are also like this and/or have some form of reciprocity with those that do.

Erosion of the Commons by telekon · 2011-10-10 16:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's not endemic to the UK or Europe. I was told the same thing trying to take a picture in a Target parking lot outside of Baltimore, MD. I didn't think much of it at the time, but what if my car had been damaged and I needed to document it for insurance purposes?

Furthermore, (and this might be a UK/US discrepancy) IANAL but I was pretty sure all a strip mall security guard could do was ask you to leave the premises. Confiscating private property seems like a torts lawyers dream, IMHO. All you would have to do is refuse to surrender your camera/phone and taunt the minimum wage rent-a-cop until he slugs you, and never have to work again.

Actually, I think I might spend more time photographing strip malls... working sucks...

--

To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Re:Erosion of the Commons by Sta7ic · 2011-10-10 16:43 · Score: 2, Informative

In general, the *USA* laws say that you can legally photograph anything visible from public property that does not require "specialized equipment", and anything on public property. You cannot legally take photographs of places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, including in restrooms, within private dwellings, and underneath clothing. Exceptions exist, but the law is far less restrictive than social norms are about photography.
The UK laws imply that you have the right to apply lubricant, if you brought it, before they violate your rights.
IANAL, but I have fun with a DSLR, and educate myself on what I legally can or can't do with it.
In the parking lot, the most the guard has the rights to do is to ask you to leave, and to escort you off the property. The police can escort you off the property, should a representative ask you to leave. Confiscation of cameras in the US is theft. Charges of wiretapping are bullshit, and routinely overturned when some police officer feels threatened by a camera.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 16:54 · Score: 0

Nice theory. Reality is TOTALLY different.
Good luck telling that it might be theft to the security guard who relieves you of your camera, trashing the SD card and smashes the camera on the ground. He will just say that the camera was used for assault, and you know what... he will completely get away with it.
In theory a security guard can ask you to leave; in reality, they can smash your face in, or just keep pulling a taser's trigger, yelling, "STOP RESISTING!" Proof? Look how many bouncers get sued, look how few bouncers lose their cases.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by jbov · 2011-10-10 16:54 · Score: 2

The article did not state that the security guard could confiscate the camera. Instead, the article stated that the officer claimed to have rights to confiscate the camera.

This is a case of having multiple possible antecedents for a pronoun.

From TFA:

Mr White said that one officer claimed that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act he was within in his rights to confiscate the mobile phone on which the photos were taken.
In this case, the pronoun "he" is referring to it's antecedent "one officer".
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Kenja · 2011-10-10 16:57 · Score: 1

Its like you where on private property or something. Next thing you know they'll be telling me I need a shirt and shoes in order to eat at their restaurant, just because they own it!

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Nursie · 2011-10-10 16:57 · Score: 4, Informative

I don't know that it's theft as such in the UK, but it's certainly not allowed.
There was supposed to be an education campaign within the UK police force to stop them from pulling this crap, as they've been shown repeatedly to be confiscating equipment without any powers to do so. And a mall cop certainly has no right to do that.
Taking a picture is most certainly not illegal either. It may be against company policy and may result in you being removed from and banned from the mall, but this is in no way illegal. (If you come back or refuse to leave, that's trespassing, sure.)
Re:Erosion of the Commons by hedwards · 2011-10-10 17:09 · Score: 1

Unlikely, I used to work security in a highrise with a sizable food court area, it's unlikely that we could have gotten away with that for the simple reason that there was always a camera on us when we were doing those sorts of confrontations.
Any mall large enough for people to be in a crowd is going to be similarly set up. If you're going to places with insufficient camera coverage of the bouncer, you should really think again about going in, those cameras aren't just for the protection of the owner and the employees.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 17:11 · Score: 0

This was private property, not public property. I don't agree with it, but its legal for the mall owners to ban photography.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by camperdave · 2011-10-10 17:17 · Score: 1

Malls, including all parking areas are PRIVATE PROPERTY, and the owners of that property can set any rules they like.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Erosion of the Commons by rthille · 2011-10-10 17:22 · Score: 1

Not in the US. There are limits as to what you can do on private property which is open to the public. A restaurant is also "private property", but you can't refuse to serve someone because they are Black, or Mormon, or Australian.

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 17:25 · Score: 0

Malls and shopping centers aren't Public Property.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Nursie · 2011-10-10 17:29 · Score: 1

"the owners of that property can set any rules they like."
Yeah, not so much. They can't set discriminatory rules like "men only" or "no blacks", and neither can they confiscate your property if they don't like you taking pictures. They can ask you to leave, and take you to civil court over the photos. That's pretty much it.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by presidenteloco · 2011-10-10 17:34 · Score: 1

What if I agree to photoshop out everything surrounding my kid who I was taking the picture of.
If that photo can still be banned, does it mean they own the air and light in between me and my little one?
Or do they only own the floor, walls, ceilings etc of the mall and images/objects on those?
WHUMMFF! Sound of security guard fist hitting non-compliant jaw.

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Re:Erosion of the Commons by superwiz · 2011-10-10 17:39 · Score: 1

Property, as such, means that the owner has the right to deny access to it. Whether the property is private or public is not the issue. The only thing at issue is that it is a property. Once the owner has indicated the access is conditioned on certain terms, you can reject the terms and leave the property. But the owner can't take arbitrary actions as you leave. So the next time someone tells you "you are on my property therefore I deem it necessary to behead you", you can safely assume that they are not within their rights as proprietors of the property.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Bacon+Bits · 2011-10-10 17:39 · Score: 1

Of course they can. Nevertheless, property owners have limited ability to do anything. Generally, all they can do is ask the photographer to stop, then ask them to leave. At that point all they can do is call the police who can remove the person for trespassing. If the property owner has posted signs that photography is not allowed, then they can more or less skip right to calling the police. Still, there is nothing more severe here than trespassing.
Simply put, shopping malls and stores do not have the same expectation of privacy that a private residence or office would because, well, stores have things like "WELCOME" and "OPEN" plastered all over their shingles. These are invitations, as are things such as posted business hours on the door. You can't be charged with trespassing if you were invited in. That's why they *must* ask you to leave before it's a legal matter. They have to rescind that open invitation.
(IANAL)

--
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by t2t10 · 2011-10-10 17:44 · Score: 1

First of all, you can't set any rules you like on your own private property; there are limits. Second, malls are private property, but they are also public spaces. As public spaces, rules apply to them that don't apply to your home.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by fahrbot-bot · 2011-10-10 17:52 · Score: 1

Malls, including all parking areas are PRIVATE PROPERTY, and the owners of that property can set any rules they like.

Regardless, those rules are not laws, hence (in this case) the photography is not "illegal", simply against the owner's policy. All they can do is ask you to leave. If you throw a hissy fit and refuse to comply, then you could probably be arrested for that...

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:Erosion of the Commons by bky1701 · 2011-10-10 18:20 · Score: 1

"Confiscation of cameras in the US is theft"

Not if you give it to them. Moral: don't give it to them.

--
Great Intellect...
Re:Erosion of the Commons by bky1701 · 2011-10-10 18:28 · Score: 1

In my book, if you're running a public business, the rules change. Of course, the law in the US doesn't currently agree with that view, but laws are often wrong. Were you alright with, say, restaurants that didn't allow minorities in? We as a society determined that simply owning a business doesn't give you the right to be racist. We can and need to decide more along those lines.

--
Great Intellect...
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Xeno+man · 2011-10-10 18:38 · Score: 1

It's not legal as law has nothing to do with it. The mall is completely within their rights to ban photography but they have no legal rights to do anything to you if you violate their policy. It's their policy, not yours. You can stand there taking hundreds of photos and they can't take your camera, they can't make you delete the pictures, they can't arrest you or tackle you. They have only one recourse and that is to ask you to leave. If you don't leave they can call the police and they can arrest you for trespassing but that is it. They can ban you from returning and have the police arrest and charge you with trespassing again if you do but that is it.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 18:41 · Score: 0

You're not really unable to read are you? The original post is pretty clear. There's nothing that indicates the photographer knew beforehand that the mall didn't allow photography. Probably the sg that stole his phone just wanted a new one for himself.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by mwvdlee · 2011-10-10 18:48 · Score: 1

I used to be pretty active with DSLR and, after a minor issue with a security guard, used to carry a photocopy of the relevant precedent in Dutch -- where I live -- law ("Vondelpark arrest") with me in my camera bag. Trouble is that most people are probably unaware of their rights when photographing and have been unlawfully restricted in their freedoms by overreaching security guards without even knowing it. Another problem is in trying to explain your rights to a person who was unqualified to become a proper cop.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Coriolis · 2011-10-10 18:58 · Score: 2

The security guard called the police, and the police told him they were entitled to confiscate his phone (under anti-terrorism legislation), but didn't actually do it.

--
Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 19:08 · Score: 0

In general, the *USA* laws say that you can legally photograph anything visible from public property
Target is private property, not public. It is *open* to the public, but that's not the same thing.

In the parking lot, the most the guard has the rights to do is to ask you to leave, and to escort you off the property.

That depends. If they have a sign which says "No photographs" then they CAN request that you delete the photos. If they don't have a sign, then any pictures taken before they informed you of the policy are yours and they have no rights to demand them from you.
You can, of course, stand on the public sidewalks and take all the pictures of their lot you wish.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by mdiendd · 2011-10-10 19:11 · Score: 1

Schaufensterpuppe
Schaufensterpuppe
Re:Erosion of the Commons by xenobyte · 2011-10-10 19:12 · Score: 1

Depends... In Denmark for instance, courts have upheld that public access changes the nature of private property. Basically the mall cops can ask someone to leave for whatever reason, but that's that.
The rules of photography are the same as on a public street - if you can see it (legally) without special aids (ladders, mirrors etc.) you can photograph it. Using or publishing the pictures are a whole different ballgame... Generic shots can be used freely, but identifiable persons need to give their permission, preferably in writing. Photographs showing 'private situations' (kissing, breastfeeding, sex etc.) cannot be used unless they have 'significant news value' and the entity that does the publicizing is a recognized news outlet.
Violations often gets punished severely. Once a tabloid was convicted to pay both a hefty restitution and a fine equal to the complete revenue from selling the issue with the offending images (which was the cover story).

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Capsaicin · 2011-10-10 19:12 · Score: 4, Informative

IANAL, but I have fun with a DSLR, and educate myself on what I legally can or can't do with it.
IAAL and you have fundamentally misunderstood what has happened here. Since you like to educate yourself, I'll share some of my precious time ;)
This is not happening pursuant to any general laws relating to photography, which are probably quite similar in the UK and the US, but under under contract law.
As I understand this situation... When the occupant (that is the resident owner, or leaseholder) of private property (eg. a shopping centre) sets conditions of entry, and displays these conditions of entry in a place visible to the entrant, the entrant is taken to have agreed to those conditions by virtue of entering the premises. The quid pro quo here is that you agree to be bound by the conditions of entry, in return for an undertaking by the occupant not to sue you in trespass.
This is, for example, what gives supermarkets the "right" (it isn't a right, you've just given permission) to search your bags where this is stipulated in the conditions of entry.
The shopping centre in question apparently made it a condition of entry that no photographs be taken by entrants. And this gentleman was apparently in breach. I have not read the conditions of entry, but they may have included an agreement to surrender all " ... equipment; film; and other media to Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC or its authorised agents" on breaching said condition.
I doubt that this works very differently in the US, the UK or indeed any other common law country, (although there may be some variance as to what limits the various legislatures have set as to what contractual conditions might be enforceable).
Confiscation of cameras in the US is theft.
"Confiscation" without a statutory right of confiscation (as some LEOs may have) or the consent of the owner, has been a common-law crime in Britain since at least the 12th century and a statutory one since the 19th, known variously as 'larceny' and 'theft.' Without reading the actual conditions, however, we don't know whether or not the gentleman in question had agreed (albeit unwittingly) to hand over his camera.
The story, I'm led to believe, has a happy ending, the corporation in question having agreed to remove this onerous condition.
The larger problem --the privatisation of the High Street and the concomitant abrogation of individual rights this involves --is, in the face of the relentless invasion of the mall, unlikely to be so happily resolved.

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Capsaicin · 2011-10-10 19:28 · Score: 1

What if I agree to photoshop out everything surrounding my kid who I was taking the picture of.
Irrelevant. You've agreed not to take a photograph in the first place.

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Re:Erosion of the Commons by AmiMoJo · 2011-10-10 19:47 · Score: 1

Our problem is that the law is mostly focused on what you can't do, with very little about specific rights. Most of them tend to come from judgements rather than the text of an Act of Parliament, meaning someone has to fight it in court.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Erosion of the Commons by augustw · 2011-10-10 20:45 · Score: 3, Informative

the UK or indeed any other common law country
Just a point of information, this happened in Scotland, which, technically, isn't a Common Law country - it's one of the few mixed jurisdictions, like Louisiana and South Africa.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 21:05 · Score: 0

In this case the shopping centre is private property.
In the "taking photos of police" case, it was on public property.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by L4t3r4lu5 · 2011-10-10 21:10 · Score: 1

Hi, and thanks for the information.

I was under the impression that consumer contract in England could not supersede your statutory rights. Therefore, how could the police officer state that he can confiscate the man's camera? He was not under arrest for any criminal offence (and hadn't committed one either), and any offence he may have committed would be purely civil (breach of conditions of entry, leading to tresspass)?

Even with your explanation above, this smacks of Officer Friendly not knowing the law and just making stuff up for the purpose of intimidation.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 21:13 · Score: 0

Where is the line drawn on what the conditions of entry are allowed to be?
For example (as an extreme example), would it be okay for the condition of entry to allow them to murder you?
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Builder · 2011-10-10 21:20 · Score: 2

The campaign was fronted by ACPO (the private organisation who advise the police how to enforce and interpret laws) after the Met (Greater London ) and City of London police spent a small fortune paying compensation to photographers arrested and detained under the terrorism act(s).
I'd not heard of it being such a big problem outside the major metropolitan centres, but apparently it still is.
Also, in Scotland, trespassing is a lot harder to arrest for in this case. But they could still do him for creating a public nuisance / disturbance.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Sqr(twg) · 2011-10-10 21:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

Are you sure that they can 'include an agreement to surrender all " ... equipment; film; and other media to Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC or its authorised agents" on breaching said condition.' ?
If so - can I set up a store in the U.K. and put a sign up at the entrance saying "by entering, you agree to pay me a thousand pounds" and then confiscate the money in the wallets of all those who are stupid enough pass through a door without reading the fine print?
I know that in Sweden, you can simply claim that I did not see the sign, and so (with the exception of military installations) you are free to take photographs until somebody points out to you that it is forbidden.
http://xkcd.com/501/
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 21:40 · Score: 0

Would it not be the case that someone who does not agree to the conditions of entry is in fact guilt of trespass and can therefore be asked to leave?
Would you assert that an illiterate or a foreigner has agreed to the terms of entry that s/he could not read?
Can a child be deemed to have agreed - s/he may be below the age required to enter into a contract?
There are questions here...
Re:Erosion of the Commons by ArsenneLupin · 2011-10-10 21:42 · Score: 1

The UK laws imply that you have the right to apply lubricant, if you brought it, before they violate your rights.
Do you also have the right to demand that they wear gloves, and please cut their fingernails?
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Blackajack · 2011-10-10 22:08 · Score: 1

In Finland, this has become a more and more apparent problem. Worst case was couple of years back when a young man was brutalized pretty hard by a gang of security guards, you don't break a twentysomething's hip by accident.. The point is that it is a fact that nobody else was there, just the guy and the 5 guards, the guy's hip is broken, but no one was actually convicted of anything. Why? The security firm first refused to give the CCTV tapes to the police, and later on claimed to have 'accidentally' erased it.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 22:51 · Score: 1

The most the security guard can do is ask you to leave the premises. Not complying would be trespass.
Even if a contract exists, the security guard can not just take the camera. Refusing to hand over the camera would create a disputed contract and the shopping centre can use the courts to attempt to enforce their contract, but it is unlikely the courts would see handing over the camera as a suitable restitution for breaking the contract terms.
Of course, if a police officer requests you do anything, the best advice is usually to comply now and complain later, but generally if there is no criminal offence or a court order, the role of police in this case is to enforce the laws of trespass and maintaining the peace. Of course, this latter one can be interpreted quite broadly, and the Terrorism Act is an even broader tool.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Cwix · 2011-10-10 23:09 · Score: 1

Tampering with evidence, Obstruction of Justice.
Sounds like there should have been more charges.

--
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by kraut · 2011-10-10 23:35 · Score: 1

Bouncers in the UK don't have tasers

--
no taxation without representation!
Re:Erosion of the Commons by timftbf · 2011-10-10 23:38 · Score: 1

Right, and if you don't, they can ask you to leave or have you removed for trespassing if you refuse.
What they can't do is hold you down and force a shirt onto you.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 23:50 · Score: 0

The larger problem --the privatisation of the High Street and the concomitant abrogation of individual rights this involves --is, in the face of the relentless invasion of the mall, unlikely to be so happily resolved.
That's going to be quite a problem in the UK. Many are living historic monuments.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by rapiddescent · 2011-10-10 23:59 · Score: 1

England is a country that shares a border to the south of Scotland. Scotland has an entirely different legal system. A lot of people get confused by this (recently seen during the release of Al-Meghrahi).
It's worth noting that the union between the four countries of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland is been the source of much turmoil in politics as the country of England has a much higher population than the other countries. The current government in Scotland is a pro-nationalist (i.e. would like separation from the union) and is set to take the country to vote in 2012 about whether to remain in the union, change the balance of devolved powers or indeed leave union completely. The Scottish government currently has limited devolved powers that include the judicial system and policing. They have to balance their books from budgets assigned by Westminter (unlike England, that can publicly borrow)
e.g. the latest Police and Criminal Justice act was passed by Holyrood, but not by westminster. The Human Rights act was passed by Scotland, but not in England & Wales until many years later.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 00:04 · Score: 0

The UK does not allow bag searches without just cause, regardless of whatever signs are put up. A security guard is not allowed to touch your personal property without your permission. If you are suspected of (say) theft, they can detain you until the police arrive, who do have the power of searching you. They can also eject you from the premises if they don't like the cut of your jib.
In this case, the security guard was unlikely to suspect the man of terrorism, so the worst that he could do was throw him out. The police were threatening to put fake charges on him to get him to comply. This is pretty common - I once had a police officer tell my mother that her cat could be prosecuted for trespassing, which resulted in a large amount of laughter at the officer's expense.
Of course Scotland has a slightly difference jurisdiction to the rest of the UK, so what I say may not completely apply. Scotland is also not a major terrorism target - the last attempted terrorist got a good kicking from a baggage handler, so I reckon Al Qaeda aren't keen to have another go.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by julesh · 2011-10-11 00:15 · Score: 2

I have not read the conditions of entry, but they may have included an agreement to surrender all " ... equipment; film; and other media to Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC or its authorised agents" on breaching said condition.
The precedent here in England is that such terms are unenforceable unless specific attention is drawn to them. See for instance the rather famous comment from Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw. A term granting a right to confiscate personal property merely because it has been used in a particular place seems to me to be very much the kind of term Denning was talking about in that judgment.
AIUI, Scottish law has a tendency to follow English in such matters, so I would presume the case is similar there.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by emj · 2011-10-11 00:19 · Score: 1

I'm not sure what publishing mean, I've always thought it was "used and published in a commercial way" not just published.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by nospam007 · 2011-10-11 00:33 · Score: 1

"Good luck telling that it might be theft to the security guard who relieves you of your camera, trashing the SD card..."
Just use Qik or similar to live stream your recording to the cloud, you'll have evidence as soon as you get home.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by kyz · 2011-10-11 00:37 · Score: 1

No, what's being bargained is that you are giving permission for the public to be on your property if they follow your conditions.
If they don't, they simply lack your permission to be on your property, they are not liable to pay you Â£1000.
In England/Wales, they are committing trespass, and you may use reasonable force to remove them from your property.

--
Does my bum look big in this?
Re:Erosion of the Commons by maxwell+demon · 2011-10-11 01:03 · Score: 0

So if you have a "men only" policy on your men's toilet and a "women only" policy on your women's toilet, you are violating the law? :-)

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 01:14 · Score: 0

Exaggerating for the sake of clarity:
The leaseholder reserves the right to stripsearch customers, under appropriate conditions, in order to deter theft, posted in 8 point font at on an A4 sized letter affixed to the wall.
Do you, as an entrant to, blindly accede to the demand for a stripsearch because you have agreed to be bound by the conditions of entry?
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 01:28 · Score: 0

Hypothetical case:
One creates a button displaying "I categorically reject your terms and conditions, and refuse to be bound by them", pins it to himself, and proceeds to shop at said store.
The shopkeeper has attempted to enact an unwritten contract through the posting of questionable terms, the other party has rejected said terms through the exact same means. What would the law do then? Bonus points - the shopper has used this tactic over a period of time, clearly recorded by the store's CCV cameras.
This EULA-ization of law has to stop
Re:Erosion of the Commons by L4t3r4lu5 · 2011-10-11 01:32 · Score: 1

That sure was a lot of words just to say "The law's different up here." :)

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 01:37 · Score: 0

So what is the limit to such quid pro quo? I mean can i start a business and make first born child a condition of entry? What if im a billionaire, buy a mall people are already used to going to, and throw up a huge sign that says I reserve sexual rights to any female members of your party that enter the property? I mean have the limits of such things been tested? What if someone put up an official appearing sign with some fake security guards and confiscated a few peoples possessions before real security showed up?
Re:Erosion of the Commons by swillden · 2011-10-11 01:42 · Score: 1

The law in the US varies from state to state. Where I live, the trespassing statute includes a clause that states that it is a defense against charges of trespassing that the business was open to the public at the time and you were not interfering with the owner's use of the property. This puts the burden on the owner to prove that you were actually causing a problem, and significantly decreases the power of business owners (except those who limit their clientele) to enforce what happens on their premises.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by LWATCDR · 2011-10-11 01:42 · Score: 1

I have no idea where you where but that has never happened to me. Outside of a movie theater I doubt that anyone gets too worried about people taking pictures. Now if you where in the middle of the mall using a DSLR taking pictures of everyone then someone might ask questions but with a camera phone? I guess if you where taking pictures of all the women you may be asked to move along for being creepy.
What the Mall in this case has to wonder about is was it worth it. Will this cause people to not want to go there.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by SecurityGuy · 2011-10-11 01:48 · Score: 2

This is, for example, what gives supermarkets the "right" (it isn't a right, you've just given permission) to search your bags where this is stipulated in the conditions of entry.
And when I rescind permission, as for example I always do when some "greeter" demands to see the receipt for merchandise I just paid for not 15' away? The signs I always see say "$PLACE reserves the right to search blah blah", which I interpret to be nonsense. You simply can't reserve a right you don't have. Now if it said something like "In exchange for right of entry, you agree to the following..." well, yeah, I'd have to think harder about it. But as it is, I don't think those signs have any more legal force than if they said they "reserved the right" to sell me into slavery.
I do buy the notion that a company COULD set up such conditions of entry and deny me the right to enter if I choose not to abide by them, but I don't for a second accept that they can forcibly make me abide by them. They should be able to do no more than cease honoring THEIR portion of the contract (allowing me in the store) or seek redress of their grievance in court, not have some goon strong arming their customer.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 01:58 · Score: 0

I was taking a picture of my kid inside the Boca Raton, FL Town Center mall and was given similar treatment to subject of this article. I had two Segway riding security guards come up to me from out of nowhere and tell me that no pictures were allowed. Of course, I didn't try to make a big deal out of it because I didn't really feel like ending up on the front page of Slashdot.
How long before taking a scenic picture of the Statue of Liberty or the Golden Gate bridge is going to be deemed a security risk!?
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 02:04 · Score: 0

It may differ from state to state in the US, but in general stores can only ask you to leave or call police officers for other instances. When being told to leave they have to be direct and not phrase it like a question as well, otherwise you could just say you don't want to.
A good example of this would be http://improveverywhere.com/2006/04/23/best-buy/
Re:Erosion of the Commons by rakaur · 2011-10-11 02:21 · Score: 1

Speaking of Baltimore, I had scarce been living here a year when I got arrested for this very thing. There's a badly designed intersection in my neighborhood that has resulted in the deaths of too many, and I document them to protest to the city to put in turn signals. This particular wreck was very bloody and messy, and both my fiancée and myself were taking pictures of the scene. Immediately two fat cops came running over telling us we couldn't take pictures because it "makes our cameras evidence." We were told if we deleted them we might be "allowed" to leave. I told them they were full of it and that I knew my rights. There's no way taking pictures of a wreck on public property is illegal (and I didn't take any pictures of any dead people, just the wreckage, they were gone before I got there). I even explained the purpose of these photos. One cop said if I didn't delete them in front of her, she'd arrest me, confiscate my phone, break it, and then release me without charges. She did just that. I filed many complaints, talked to lawyers, but she didn't break the law so I'm told.

There were tons of news people there recording the scene. There was a large towering apartment building with people taking pictures up there, but I guess harassing two young 20 somethings enforcing fictional laws is less work for the Baltimore police.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 02:25 · Score: 0

Sorry, no. Signs carry no legal weight here in Georgia and many other places in the USA. I walk right past them carrying my handgun, daily..
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 02:32 · Score: 0

Minimum-wage workers have a tough enough life. I'm not going to taunt them, particularly when it's not their own rules their enforcing, and I think the odds of winning a never-have-to-work-again settlement are pretty slim.
If reasoning with them doesn't work, I'll just leave.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Sqr(twg) · 2011-10-11 02:32 · Score: 1

Capsaicin, above, claims to be a lawyer, and says that they can confiscate your camera/film/whatever as long as they post a note by the door saying they will.
Of course, lawyers are known to be lying from time to time...
Re:Erosion of the Commons by codegen · 2011-10-11 02:46 · Score: 2

IAAL and you have fundamentally misunderstood what has happened here. Since you like to educate yourself, I'll share some of my precious time ;)
IANAL, but I'll point out that you forgot to add "this is not a legal advice". You forgot the fact that courts routinely strike clauses in contracts that are considered unconscionable, or over burdening. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that any court in a commonwealth country or the US would strike down any condition of entry that allowed a mall security guard to confiscate private possessions. As far as I know, the best they can do is ask you to leave (or charge you with trespassing). You also forgot to mention that country and state law can place limits on what such conditions of entry may reasonably demand. You should also look into California law which prohibits some conditions on corporate places generally open to the public. By the way, http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm is prepared by someone who also appears to be a lawyer, and appears to be better informed about the facts than you are. By the way, IANAL, and this is not legal advice...

--
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 02:54 · Score: 0

Isn't it a bit early for fisting?
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Raenex · 2011-10-11 03:07 · Score: 1

Of course, lawyers are known to be lying from time to time...
Or just plain wrong. Nobody's perfect.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 03:45 · Score: 1

Just to be a needling bugger... Also IANAL, but I play one on TV... Seriously though, I've done more reading on the electronic part of this than most lawyers that don't specialize in it. But the physical side is new territory for me. Thanks for the analysis, and I'll do a bit of reading on the "conditions of entry" as term of the art later to see if there is any electronic case-law on it.
For sake of wild-ass-argument, let's presume the sign is actually visible and prominent.
So... I walk in and take pictures.
The security guard has reason to believe he can confiscate based upon implied contract. Sure, we'll go out on a limb and call it standard form/adhesion even if I think this is nuts. Specifically, I'm aware of /nothing/ that interprets posted notices as standard form contracts or of adhesion. Feel free to suggest a search to the contrary--but at least in electronic systems, it hasn't held weight. It just provides enough notice to keep the *owner* of the system from getting sued or prosecuted.
Now--when I say "No" to handing over the camera--normally...this could be taken as a counter offer. Except the Guard has no reasonable authority to make or accept such--it's Standard Form, Take It Or Leave It.
So... really? What's the worst that happens? A breach of contract in which nothing of value was offered or exchanged? In which the guard threatens or threatens to use force to obtain what is theirs by contract?
To use your jargon--a contract with nothing of consideration offered? Not even a future option of consideration? Remember--you can't contract with me not to break the law. Although you can include penalties if I should do so as some of your terms? Is Trespass an penalty under an implied term here?
You seem to /really/ be stretching contract law here. Not only is nothing offered, and not only is it adhering based on something any person would do anyway even if the sign wasn't there (contrast with clicking OK on shrink-wrap which you would not do under other circumstances), but what you're offering...is a negative. At that--a negative you have no power to control. As a storeowner you /can/ agree not to press charges, but you ultimately have little control over whether or not I'm in trespass in a public place after you invite me in or request that I leave.
At *best*, your offer is "not to sue me".
So...let's sum this up.
Person with camera:
- We'll just call that breach of contract with damages that are utterly minimal and speculative.
- Trespassing. A torte, right? Laugh...this is really perverse from my chair--using a contract to establish something you've...waived en masse. But because courts are weird...sure...I'll buy into it. In practice the charge would stick.
Security Guard:
- Larceny or other criminal conversion of property
- Probably assault or battery if they even implied they would use any measure of force (see what happens when you enter in to random contracts with people you don't know? You have no power to enforce them)
So, in essence... they've reacted to a presumed breach of contract and torte law...with...multiple breach of criminal law when they could've just gotten a court order. One that in the case of some cameras would be a material felony by virtue of value alone even ignoring the force implications.
And all of that... is before we can find a single instance of someone else taking a picture and show the contract is bunk by virtue of laches WRT the rights asserted.
Now, you're free to correct any point, call them bunk, ignore me...whatever. I think the relevant point is--there's multiple wholly legitimate arguments utterly against this so-called contract the store creates, any individual one of which should in theory be sufficient to annihilate claims by the store.
In practice, the legal system is little more than a craps game played with very expensive dice.
But it sure seems like the agent trying to get that camera should have the odds stacked heavily against them.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by angel'o'sphere · 2011-10-11 03:46 · Score: 1

Publishing means publishing, wtf. Why do people always assume a secret hidden message behind a word, just because it is in a law paragraph?
If you print it on paper and hand it out as flyer for free: it is publishing.
If you put it on your web page: it is publishing.
If you upload it to flickr or youtube: it is publishing.
If you make posters and nail them at trees: it is publishing.
If you write a book and put it inside and sell it for money, of course that is also publishing ...
Sigh

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 04:13 · Score: 1

Surprising lack of attention to detail for a lawyer. Did the customer explicitly agree that he would not take photos under penalty of surrendering the camera? Then the "condition of entry" was not presented properly, and therefore unenforceable, and therefore the confiscation of camera IS theft. They can peacefully remove you from the premises, but anything involving force or confiscation would legally need to wait for a REAL law enforcement officer (even if he continued to snap photos when told to leave). The rent-a-cop wouldn't even be allowed to detain the customer to wait for police, unless he wanted to have the crap sued right out of him.
We need lawyers with brains. All lawyers do these days is try to figure out how to interpret the law in a way that makes them money.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Tanktalus · 2011-10-11 04:14 · Score: 1

Um, yeah. I'm holding a gun to your head and ask you to give me your wallet. So, if you do, it's not robbery, it's a gift? Similarly, if your employer makes your life a living hell and you quit, you can't sue for wrongful dismissal? Both of these have "no" as the answer. Same with your scenario. If a mall guard (using threatened authority, whether an actual weapon is present or not) confiscates your camera, and s/he has no legal right to do so (let's face it, it's unlikely they do), it's theft.
If they merely copy your SD card and return the SD card to you, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. (Woops, wrong argument.)
Re:Erosion of the Commons by kyz · 2011-10-11 04:24 · Score: 1

Being on your property versus not being on your property - this is your only bargaining chip.
If the public wants to remain on your property, then they can submit to your conditions, otherwise they simply have to walk away.
You can't create an outstanding liability that attaches to them even if they reject the conditions, so you can't force people to forfeit something just because they were on your land. (However, if they damage something while trespassing, you can take them to (civil) court to force them to pay for repairs. The court will decide if your claims are reasonable.)

--
Does my bum look big in this?
Re:Erosion of the Commons by jedidiah · 2011-10-11 05:18 · Score: 1

The security guard better have gun if he tries to take my phone or he's going to be on permanent disability.
Some wannabe from Wackenhut is not a real cop. I won't treat him like one.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 05:22 · Score: 0

In theory a security guard can ask you to leave; in reality, they can smash your face in, or just keep pulling a taser's trigger, yelling, "STOP RESISTING!"
That's be pretty funny if a security guard did that to me. My wife would put a bullet in his head with her .357 Magnum.
Besides, I've never seen a mall security guard here that looked like they could even win a fight against a paraplegic. You seem to be confusing bouncers at night clubs with mall guards, who are usually just pimply-faced teenagers (or these days, unathletic middle-age guys who lost their regular job).
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Grishnakh · 2011-10-11 05:27 · Score: 1

Yeah, I thought that generally they had to ask you to leave, and it only became trespassing if you refused to leave. At that point, they had to call the real police to remove you; they're not allowed to do it themselves, unless you become physical yourself. Of course, this for some reason doesn't seem to be the case in bars and nightclubs; I'm not sure what the difference is there.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 05:49 · Score: 0

Chiming in with my club experience: I wouldn't consider that as a trustworthy way for evidence. In the venues I worked at, it was common for cameras "not to be on" or "CCTV system broken" if anyone wanted to obtain footage, or came by with a motion of discovery. Of course, said system works perfectly if it will help the nightclub...
Re:Erosion of the Commons by augustw · 2011-10-11 05:50 · Score: 1

(Ignoring the England/Scotland confusion...)
It's also highly unlikely that such ah onerous contract term (camera confiscation) would be binding, unless the conditions were very prominently displayed (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd). And I can tell you that they are not - I've been to the Braehead mall many times (I used to work nearby), and such signs, if they exist, are not prominent.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 05:57 · Score: 0

Got theory confused with the real world there bro. Venue owners and police work often to deal with shoplifters, bar brawlers, and other vermin. In reality, the constable will pull up with a piece of paper, ask "got tapes between this time and this", the owner will say, "naw... they got overwritten", constable will say, "sorry to bother you, have a nice day", and that is that.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 06:02 · Score: 0

Then the wife will be given natural life for capital murder, and you with her as an accessory. No, a security guard may not be a commissioned peace officer (oftentimes some are), but any DA will be throwing the book at anyone attacking someone in uniform, even if technically they are not part of the thin blue line.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by presidenteloco · 2011-10-11 06:11 · Score: 2

"...and displays these conditions of entry in a place visible to the entrant, the entrant is taken to have agreed to those conditions"
Now if I conducted a statistically valid survey of entrants to the mall and found that only 0.2 % of them recalled having seen the
posted "conditions of entry", and that none could accurately recall any particular condition, could I make a case that
the contract was not valid because it relied on a false model of human perception, attention, comprehension etc. and as
such the notion that the mall entrants had "agreed" (which is a willful act, requiring, as a precondition, awareness of what is to be agreed to)
is fallacious.
Could the same argument be made to invalidate click-to-agree-to-terms licenses when entering website areas, downloading
content, etc. because it can be establishes that almost everybody "just quickly clicks" to get on with what they are focussed on
doing, without comprehending the legal text (which we could show takes a minimum of 5 minutes to do in any meaningful sense.)
Because "nothing ever happens" people just habitually treat it as nothing but another click (routine control action) needed to
complete their task. So again, no agreement has really been reached, because of the overwhelmingly likely lack of
comprehension of what is to be agreed to.
Finally, given that demographics are shifting to a large bulge of elderly people in Western countries whose eyesight is degrading,
can I basically get all "fine print" legal clause thrown out because we can demonstrate that they are not in practice
readable, hence not comprehensible, hence not agreeable nor agreed.

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Re:Erosion of the Commons by gfreeman · 2011-10-11 06:13 · Score: 1

I see your smiley, but I can't recall ever going into a "Men only" toilet, just a "Men"'s toilet.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 06:15 · Score: 0

BS. They're not cops, and if they're attacking you, you have a right to defend yourself with deadly force.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by augustw · 2011-10-11 07:59 · Score: 2

the police told him they were entitled to confiscate his phone (under anti-terrorism legislation)
Which, for the record, he had no power to do, under anti-terrorism legislation, or any other provision.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by _avs_007 · 2011-10-11 09:17 · Score: 1

This is, for example, what gives supermarkets the "right" (it isn't a right, you've just given permission) to search your bags where this is stipulated in the conditions of entry.

No, it doesn't work like that. In my freshmen year law class, they teach you that you cannot waiver protected rights. Signs do not form a contract/agreement. One of the cases we looked at was a shopping center that had a sign saying that they are not responsible for damage caused by carts. They cannot ask you to waiver that right, because they are legally responsible for their property, which includes their carts. If you think you can form an agreement that asks somebody to waiver a right, with a simple sign... Try wearing a sign around your neck that says, "By allowing me to enter your store, you are releasing me from all liability from my actions, which includes but is not limited to looting, shoplifting, trespassing, and pillaging." and see if they allow you do rob them blind when you walk into their store...
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 11:21 · Score: 0

Yea, something similar happened to me in Grapevine mall in Dallas Texas. We were recording a trip we took on a video camera, and the guards stopped us. Said they got a report that we were video recording a girls butt...i mean come on...they took our camera and demanded to see the video footage. We told them then can only see from when we pulled into the parking lot. They said ok, and watched it. They then made us delete the video, because we had some of the stores in our video, and were asked to leave. Needless to say, we left and haven't returned. Pretty fun trip...:(
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 11:46 · Score: 0

That depends. If they have a sign which says "No photographs" then they CAN request that you delete the photos. If they don't have a sign, then any pictures taken before they informed you of the policy are yours and they have no rights to demand them from you.
You can, of course, stand on the public sidewalks and take all the pictures of their lot you wish.
They can REQUEST whatever they want, but no one has the right to confiscate your film or make you delete it.
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Capsaicin · 2011-10-11 12:14 · Score: 1

I was under the impression that consumer contract in England could not supersede your statutory rights.
Which is why I wrote about the "limits the various legislatures have set as to what contractual conditions might be enforceable." Generally you are free to assign or bail your property, such as a camera. In recognition of the fact, however, of the power imbalance in most contractual relationships between large organisations and individuals (and how many people actually read all the fine print on all documents they sign, they EULA the click, or even realise that they are entering a into contract when they buy an ice-cream), legislatures around the CL world have imposed various statutory limitation as to what contractual terms can be imposed (esp. during the 70s and 80s before the tide turned again away from human and towards corporate rights. Some "statutory right" are drafted explicitly to state that they cannot be abrogated by contract.
Therefore, how could the police officer state that he can confiscate the man's camera?
Sorry, I was under the (mis?)apprehension that it was the security guard (ie. the Corporation via its agent) which made the claim that they could. Whether this was true would depend on whether conditions of entry stated they could and whether it is the kind of condition which they could enforce in court. And just because you've imposed a condition doesn't mean a court will allow you to enforce it, but that is not a matter for the security guard to consider. If it was actually a police officer saying this it was probably some obscure provision under some draconian anti-terrorist legislation which has been so widely drafted as to abrogate all right the free-born Englishman has accumulated since Magna Carta. Sorry, strike that last sentence, I got a bit carried away. :)
This smacks of Officer Friendly not knowing the law and just making stuff up for the purpose of intimidation.
Well I've never struck this in the police. In my experience they are careful to work within their powers. But then here in New South Wales police powers are organised in a particular way. Instead of the officer "just making stuff up," they go to the Murdoch press, and tell them what powers they would like to have, who in turn tell the state government what legislation to pass. That wouldn't ever happen in England, I'm sure.

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Capsaicin · 2011-10-11 12:32 · Score: 1

If so - can I set up a store in the U.K. and put a sign up at the entrance saying "by entering, you agree to pay me a thousand pounds" and then confiscate the money in the wallets of all those who are stupid enough pass through a door without reading the fine print?
That would seem an unreasonable condition to impose and no court would enforce it unless you made it very clear that such an entry charge was being levied. As might be the case for admittance to a front-row seat is some gala concert of an ageing celebrity singer ... This is law, it's not B&W, there is a mountain of (sometimes contradictory) case law to consider. There are many limits to what is enforceable both at CL and by virtue of statute. Remember I wrote parenthetically about the "limits the various legislatures have set as to what contractual conditions might be enforceable"
On the other hand I doubt a supermarket overreaches when it seeks permission to search your bag as a condition of entry. I've been in a cue where a man harrangued a poor check-out chick that the bag was private property and they had no right to search without a warrant &c. &c. He was wrong of course. My point was simply don't be too sure.

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Capsaicin · 2011-10-11 13:32 · Score: 1

Do you, as an entrant to, blindly accede to the demand for a stripsearch because you have agreed to be bound by the conditions of entry?
8 point font? Clearly not! The good thing about exaggerating is that you avoid the grey areas.
In any case one would hope that strip searches would be so unreasonable as to be unenforceable without explicit verbal agreement. In fact I would hope that confiscation of the camera would be unenforceable too. But when you start talking about temporary removal of the media containing photos taken in breach of the conditions of entry you start heading into grey areas where you may need to defer to the opinion of a court before speaking with certainty.
My take home message was not meant to be, they have a right to confiscate your camera (which I doubt). It was don't be too sure about the "rights" on the case, law is difficult.

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Nursie · 2011-10-11 13:38 · Score: 1

I did wonder if this would come up when I wrote the comment.
Clearly the law has more grey areas and more common sense than people like you and I who tend to try to apply any given law to every possible situation!
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 13:57 · Score: 0

This is, for example, what gives supermarkets the "right" (it isn't a right, you've just given permission) to search your bags where this is stipulated in the conditions of entry
Not quite sure what you're saying here but in Australia, regardless of what they claim (yes, we have signs stating that "by entering you agree to a cavity search"), this is in fact incorrect and you have every right to say no, all they can do is ask you to leave or call the police if they have "reason" to believe that you've stolen something.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by gmhowell · 2011-10-11 14:37 · Score: 1

Not in the US. There are limits as to what you can do on private property which is open to the public. A restaurant is also "private property", but you can't refuse to serve someone because they are Black, or Mormon, or Australian.
The US has gone straight downhill since we had to start letting the koala humpers dine with us civilized folk.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Capsaicin · 2011-10-11 15:11 · Score: 1

No, it doesn't work like that. In my freshmen year law class, they teach you that you cannot waiver protected rights.
Who is talking about "protected" rights. I'm not sure where you are studying Law, in England, Australia, and indeed most of the CL world, SFAIK, the leading case, from which subsequent curial authority flows is Parker v Sth Eastern Railway where it was held that exclusion clauses must be specifically brought to notice, but are not invalid merely for not having been read.
Try wearing a sign around your neck that says, "By allowing me to enter your store ...
How would the consideration flow in this case?

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Capsaicin · 2011-10-11 15:14 · Score: 1

I'll point out that you forgot to add "this is not a legal advice". You forgot the fact that courts routinely strike clauses in contracts that are considered unconscionable.
No it was not legal advice, nor did I forget that. It was just notice that the law in effect related to entry of private property. I'm sorry now I even talked about confiscation (which I seriously doubt would fly), but I wanted to dispel OPs certainty in the matter.

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Capsaicin · 2011-10-11 15:51 · Score: 1

Or just plain wrong. Nobody's perfect.
Quite.
And if I gave a definite opinion such (as OP put it) that "they can confiscate your camera/film/whatever as long as they post a note by the door saying they will," on a matter in a foreign (though related) jurisdiction, without reference to legislative framework (such as unfair contracts legislation), the current curial authority, the facts scenario from a source other than (mis)reporting in the popular press or the actuals wording of the condition in question, I would almost certainly be wrong.
Which is why I did not do so.
What I wrote was "we don't know whether or not the gentleman in question had agreed (albeit unwittingly) to hand over his camera", which I concede now ,was too strongly worded, as I have apparently implied to readers that I believe this would be sufficient to make such a term enforceable. For the record, this term seems to me so onerous that it wouldn't, for any number of reasons, fly. My intention was not to make any definitive statement about the legality of confiscation in those circumstances, anywhere in the world. Quite the opposite, my intention was to dispel the certainty with which it was being claimed that they do not.

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Capsaicin · 2011-10-11 16:04 · Score: 1

I would presume so too. It is good (if perhaps not strictly binding) authority here (in NSW). I read it ... oh some 10 years ago. And there is the other relevant decision by Denning in the parking station case (sorry can't recall the name right now) about conditions needing to be prominently displayed. Additionally there is unfair contracts legislation (which I hinted at) to be considered.
I'm sorry if^H^H that I came across as claiming that such a term, were it included, would be enforceable. I trust it would not. I was really just trying to shake OP complete certainty that there could be no possible circumstance under which confiscation would be possible.

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Capsaicin · 2011-10-11 16:32 · Score: 1

Where is the line drawn on what the conditions of entry are allowed to be?
Well that's for a court to say on a case by case basis. I'm only flagging the possibility that confiscation might be a term, I'm not saying that it would be enforceable. I really doubt it would be. It seems just too onerous to be enforceable without having explicitly been brought to the attention. But then again actual decisions can often be surprising. And absent clear curial authority, it's not for me to say.
as an extreme example
Extreme examples, as opposed to real world examples, are the most easily answered and thus the least interesting. Look for the marginal cases if you really want to get into the nitty-gritty.
would it be okay for the condition of entry to allow them to murder you?
That's a completely different kettle of fish. Firstly murder is a crime, which traditionally speaking is something which disturbed the king's peace. Even where people are citizens rather than subjects, crimes are better thought of as being against the community than the individual. Individuals can seek redress via tort, contract &c. Think about O J Simpson, the prosecution for the crime was not successful, but the individuals affected retained a right to seek redress at tort.
Generally where statute proscribes behaviour or imposes obligations people cannot evade these simply by agreeing amongst each other. That's not contract, that's conspiracy. :)

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Capsaicin · 2011-10-11 17:41 · Score: 1

(Ignoring the England/Scotland confusion...)
Actually I was trying to be so general as to ignore the UK, US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand &c. distinction, let alone the various division therein ... :)
It's also highly unlikely that such ah onerous contract term (camera confiscation) would be binding, unless the conditions were very prominently displayed (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd).
Yes thank you! I was trying to remember the name of that case! Someone below reminded me that it was in Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw that Denning LJ established that onerous clauses must be written in proverbial “red ink,” and I couldn’t bring to mind the name of the “parking station case” which required prominent display. Actually the principle that exclusion clauses (and Thornton dealt with an exclusion clause) must be brought to notice, (whether or not notice is actually taken), was already established in Parker v Sth Eastern Rail back in the C19th.
It was this aspect of Thornton, however, which I was communicating in my original post when I wrote "[When] ... a shopping centre ... sets conditions of entry, and displays these conditions of entry in a place visible to the entrant ..." [emphasis added], though I should perhaps have written "prominently visible" ...
It’s also highly unlikely that such ah onerous contract term (camera confiscation) would be binding
I should damn well hope not! Again, as I’ve now written numerous times in reply (this will be my last), it was not my intent to state positively that said shopping centre has the right to confiscate, but to get the OP to reflect upon the certainty with which he insisted they do not. OK, I'm being a little coy, I was deliberately provocative and cannot now complain at having provoked. But 23 replies ... sheesh!
And also there is there effect of unfair contracts legislation (which I hinted at) to consider.
And I can tell you that they are not - I’ve been to the Braehead mall many times (I used to work nearby), and such signs, if they exist, are not prominent.
Ah yes, but these are the mere facts of the case. ;)
Although I do not practise now, I did once act for someone in a shopping centre case (‘act’ is too strong a word, since we did not take on the case, I tried to help them out shall we say) . Being as vague as possible to avoid identification ... Someone had managed to get themselves indefinitely excluded from entry to their local shopping centre for what was IMO a fairly minor matter. What was worse they were employed in shop in that centre. I spoke to the manager, and as we were not taking this on, did not assert any legal rights, but tried to appeal to his better nature. “The person is really sorry, it was out of character, they live nearby and have never caused trouble before, they work here and will be unemployed if you don’t show mercy ... blah blah. “ The manager seemed very amenable to reversing the decision.
The next day he called me back, he had (unfortunately) spoken to his “legals,” (even thought I had strenuously avoided any legal claim) they said they didn’t have to reverse the ban, so he wouldn’t, end of story, goodbye. So we end up with some poor bod, lost their job, unable to enter the local shop when there are none for miles about, or even access basic social amenities such as the local Post Office. And all this without any real avenue of appeal (as would be the case where the state to make an order).
Perhaps it is a shame we could never pursue this matter, but it has left me feeling that issues of individual rights which are being affected by the privatisation of public space (the mall eating the high street), have yet to be seriously addressed.

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 21:11 · Score: 0

Hmm... Not quite... The shopping mall is essentially "private property" - i.e. it belongs to, for example, Westfield, who lease space out to shop owners. Therefore they HAVE the right to ban photography.
HOWEVER, being private property, the rent-a-cops can, at best, ask you to leave - at worst, they can call the cops to have to removed. They cannot "confiscate" anything, nor can they detain you at all. Ofr course, if they just stand in your way and not let you leave, there's nothing you can do - to push them out of the way would be assault.
Of course, "detaining" you in this manner could be said to be said to be "illegal deprivation of liberty" (i.e. kidnapping - yeah, a stretch).
Disclosure: IUTBALBTISTLAGII - I Used To Be A Lawyer But They I Saw The Light And Got Into IT
Re:Erosion of the Commons by ehlo · 2011-10-11 23:57 · Score: 1

IANAL, but I have fun with a DSLR, and educate myself on what I legally can or can't do with it.
IAAL and you have fundamentally misunderstood what has happened here. Since you like to educate yourself, I'll share some of my precious time ;)
This is not happening pursuant to any general laws relating to photography, which are probably quite similar in the UK and the US, but under under contract law.
As I understand this situation... When the occupant (that is the resident owner, or leaseholder) of private property (eg. a shopping centre) sets conditions of entry, and displays these conditions of entry in a place visible to the entrant, the entrant is taken to have agreed to those conditions by virtue of entering the premises. The quid pro quo here is that you agree to be bound by the conditions of entry, in return for an undertaking by the occupant not to sue you in trespass.
This is, for example, what gives supermarkets the "right" (it isn't a right, you've just given permission) to search your bags where this is stipulated in the conditions of entry.
The shopping centre in question apparently made it a condition of entry that no photographs be taken by entrants. And this gentleman was apparently in breach. I have not read the conditions of entry, but they may have included an agreement to surrender all " ... equipment; film; and other media to Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC or its authorised agents" on breaching said condition.
I doubt that this works very differently in the US, the UK or indeed any other common law country, (although there may be some variance as to what limits the various legislatures have set as to what contractual conditions might be enforceable).
Confiscation of cameras in the US is theft.
"Confiscation" without a statutory right of confiscation (as some LEOs may have) or the consent of the owner, has been a common-law crime in Britain since at least the 12th century and a statutory one since the 19th, known variously as 'larceny' and 'theft.' Without reading the actual conditions, however, we don't know whether or not the gentleman in question had agreed (albeit unwittingly) to hand over his camera.
The story, I'm led to believe, has a happy ending, the corporation in question having agreed to remove this onerous condition.
The larger problem --the privatisation of the High Street and the concomitant abrogation of individual rights this involves --is, in the face of the relentless invasion of the mall, unlikely to be so happily resolved.
I'm a law student and while I agree with the fundamental points which you make here but I do have some concerns regarding the onerous (a legal term which means, in this context, unfair) terms set out in these supposed notices.
I believe that it was in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking where Lord Denning said that some terms are so onerous that you would have to have those terms printed in big red letters with arrows pointing towards them (bless him).
In Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd an exemption on the part of the hotel (in the case) was not held to give rise to an exemption because the notice was presented too late. To apply this to this case I should think that the notice would have to be a quite large sign (large enough to be noticed by a reasonable man taking reasonable efforts) on the outside of the mall - that is to say before entry as entry would constitute offer and acceptance and the contract would be formed (you would at that point have agreed to the terms). If they didn't go to reasonable lengths to inform this man and his child (the sign wasn't sufficiently large or something like that) then Parker v SE Railways Co may give relief.
Does this make any sense?
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Fastolfe · 2011-10-13 04:13 · Score: 1

And this gentleman was apparently in breach. I have not read the conditions of entry, but they may have included an agreement to surrender all " ... equipment; film; and other media to Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC or its authorised agents" on breaching said condition.
Does this actually permit the security guard to compel you to surrender your camera? If I choose to keep my camera, I would think a court would be needed to enforce this aspect of the contract before anyone can take my camera without my permission.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-13 05:18 · Score: 0

Again IANAL.
Except he was in a public place. In the UK a shopping centre, and even shops, are public spaces because no permission was required for entry. Taking photography in a public space is legal (regardless of signs) all the shop can do is tell you to leave. If you dont leave after been told too you are then trespassing.
However if you have to pay to enter a space (museum for example) then permission was required for entry and you are bound to follow conditions of entry.
Re:Erosion of the Commons by dcw3 · 2011-10-14 03:03 · Score: 1

They can't set discriminatory rules like "men only"
No more ladies nights?

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:Erosion of the Commons by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-16 08:00 · Score: 0

I have some good friends who are street car "nuts".
They were taking pictures of a street car in Philadelphia and were told that it was not allowed as they could be terrorist plotting a bombing.
*IF* they got permission from the streetcar people then it was "OK".
This all goes back to Bush & Company for their scare tactics of different colors for terrorists warnings.
Bring them (BUSH) for taking away simple basic human rights.

It would be so great... by penguinstorm · 2011-10-10 16:32 · Score: 1

if the people who responded to this actually had some knowledge about the United Kingdom's legal structure.

Probably not going to happen.

In Canada, the Security Guard's case would be dubious. While a shopping mall is private property it's not "private" private property. They could legitimately ask you to leave, but not confiscate your property.

This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the case in the United Kingdom.

--
Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll

Re:It would be so great... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2011-10-10 16:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the case in the United Kingdom.
Well, it does have one thing in common - I doubt a Canadian (or American) security guard has been given any better (read: significant) training in what is or isn't legal behavior, or what they legally can or cannot do when dealing with a "suspect".
In America we had Homeland Security people telling photographers, post 9/11 (obviously), they couldn't take photos of bridges because they might be used for terrorism. The statement didn't have any basis in law... it seems they were just winging it. Fortunately some photographers pushed back, and now people know a bit more about their rights when it comes to photography in public spaces.
If this UK dad pushes back hard enough, maybe UK security guards (or, more likely, their bosses) will end up a touch better informed regarding what sorts of restrictions can and cannot be placed upon behavior in shopping malls.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:It would be so great... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 16:51 · Score: 0

Actually, in Canada, it is legal to use wiretapping, as long as at least one participant is aware of it....like YOU.
Re:It would be so great... by Dahamma · 2011-10-10 17:01 · Score: 1

if the people who responded to this actually had some knowledge about the United Kingdom's legal structure.
...
This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the case in the United Kingdom.
So, summary is you responded but had no actual knowledge of the United Kingdom's legal structure?
Re:It would be so great... by hedwards · 2011-10-10 17:15 · Score: 1

It depends a great deal on the state that you're in. I know that the SEIU wants more training for security, largely because it promotes workplace safety as well as giving them more leverage when bargaining for a new collective bargaining agreement.
Unfortunately, the conditions still largely suck and the licensing isn't anywhere near enough. And I say that from experience, they cover the basics of the law, but there's so much more that one really needs to know. Around here one doesn't require a license at all if one is working directly for the property owner, and in all cases private security gets the subset of ownership rights that the owner of the property chooses to grant to the officers. In many cases one has more rights as a general member of the public to stop something than security does.
There's also a lot of ignorance over what precisely security is and isn't allowed to do. I remember folks used to assume that I could do something about the smokers, and the truth is that we can't do anything about it. We can ask them to leave the property, or extinguish the cigarette, but in most cases that just involves them walking 3 feet to the sidewalk at which point nobody's really gotten what they want.
Re:It would be so great... by mug+funky · 2011-10-10 17:33 · Score: 1

so alice and bob needn't know so long as eve does?
but it would be illegal if not even eve knew she was eavesdropping?
Re:It would be so great... by tyldis · 2011-10-10 17:52 · Score: 2

Same in Norway. Any private property is considered 'public' if you, the owner, treat it as such. Which means malls, parking lots etc.
You cannot demand or expect privacy by visiting such places (you might get filmed or photographed by someone without consent - and you can photograph someone without their consent).
I assume this particular case is a misguided case of protecting the children from pedos and women from upskirt shooters, coupled with a security guard with a God complex.
Re:It would be so great... by Wolfling1 · 2011-10-10 18:23 · Score: 1

In Aus, security guards know little more than how to punch someone's head in - though a few more enlightened ones have been educated to use a mobile phone to call for help - because legally, they can't do anything else.

Having said all that, it occurs to me that the man in TFA breached a civil contract by taking the photos - and could/should be pursued via the civil courts.

Taking his phone from him is robbery. A criminal act.

/not a lawyer
Re:It would be so great... by Xeno+man · 2011-10-10 18:45 · Score: 1

It's only legal if Eve is a part of the conversation, unless alice was wearing a wire for eve.
Re:It would be so great... by DarwinSurvivor · 2011-10-10 19:39 · Score: 1

Not quite. One party of the conversation (that the other party/parties know are part of the conversation) must know about it. So if Alice, Bob and Charlie are having a conversation and they all know each other are involved, any one of them can record it without informing the others. Dave on the other hand can't (unless doing so on behalf of Alice, Bob or Charlie).
Re:It would be so great... by crossmr · 2011-10-10 21:29 · Score: 1

Actually they are often instructed on what is and isn't legal for liability purposes. Property owners would face lawsuits if security guards were just winging it as that would be very likely to end badly.
On private property in Canada, a property owner who allows public access can remove that with a warning. Even if there are no posted signs about no-photography a security guard can tell you to stop taking pictures or leave the property. If you took another picture at that point you would be trespassing and and since that is an indictable offence they could actually arrest you at that point and hold you for the police.
Private property is very different from the sidewalk, and in fact it isn't the photography that is illegal. It's the fact that you're trespassing.
Re:It would be so great... by rolfwind · 2011-10-10 23:52 · Score: 1

It's a case of people being retards.
FTFA:

A spokesman for Braehead said: "Staff at an ice cream stall in Braehead became suspicious after they saw a male shopper taking photographs at their counter.
My god, wtf has happened to our society? Would this be any different if it were a female? Imagine they replace "male" with "black" or "Arabic". Retards gone wild. Guy is taking pics of his kid, that should have been obvious to the counter staff. I seriously doubt his daughter paid for her ice cream herself and he just all of a sudden approached her.
Re:It would be so great... by nosferatu1001 · 2011-10-11 01:23 · Score: 1

Good luck proving any damages, however.
Re:It would be so great... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 04:54 · Score: 0

at that point you would be trespassing and and since that is an indictable offence
In Canada, trespass is not an indictable offence, it is a summary offence.
Re:It would be so great... by augustw · 2011-10-11 08:06 · Score: 1

. If you took another picture at that point you would be trespassing and and since that is an indictable offence they could actually arrest you at that point and hold you for the police.
This is not the case in Scotland, where the events took place. There, trespass is not an indictable offence (it's a civil delict), and, even if it were, the rights of non-police to detain people is very limited, especially if force is required.

This is fairly common, it's not really news-worthy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 16:33 · Score: 0

This isn't really all that notable.

I have no idea about UK law but from Australia which tends to base its laws on the UK's, the shopping centre as a private property owner is well within its rights to tell you what you can and can't do there, and that includes taking photos. They can ask you to leave if you don't obey those conditions eg you continue to take photos. But they have no right to steal your property from you, ie take your camera, its film, or delete the photo on your camera. Those are yours. The police also do not have this right, notwithstanding if they suspect you of some unrelated crime of course. Security guards and many police regularly believe, mistakenly, that they can seize cameras or force you to delete photos even though this isn't the case - it's a common issue and you can read about instances of it all over the web if you like. But the bit about not being able to remain on their property after you've broken their rules about taking photos is true. You get to keep the camera and photos though.

Photographer Rights by sirnobicus · 2011-10-10 16:33 · Score: 2

The security guard is within his rights to tell the customer that he is not allowed to take photographs within that environment, if it is private property. However confiscating the device is opening another can of worms, that would be considered theft.

Re:Photographer Rights by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 19:46 · Score: 0

The security guard is within his rights to tell the customer that he is not allowed to take photographs within that environment, if it is private property.
However confiscating the device is opening another can of worms, that would be considered theft.
Well, that's complicated. If they have it posted that "No Photographs are allowed" then technically the pictures are THEIR property, not yours, and the same laws would apply which cover them being able to search, let's just say, a backpack which you've placed stolen items into.
A store with any brains at all would call the police and have THEM conduct the search, however, to prevent any legal liability for theft, false accusation, etc.
Re:Photographer Rights by MysteriousPreacher · 2011-10-10 20:41 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, that's complicated. If they have it posted that "No Photographs are allowed" then technically the pictures are THEIR property, not yours, and the same laws would apply which cover them being able to search, let's just say, a backpack which you've placed stolen items into.
This is so painfully wrong, legally and logically, that I'm just going to respond by listing some animals.
Dog, cat, rabbit, zebra.

--
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Re:Photographer Rights by nosferatu1001 · 2011-10-11 01:31 · Score: 1

"Technically" you're wrong, entirely so.

silly "personality rights" by einhverfr · 2011-10-10 16:33 · Score: 1

The issue here has to do with various European treaties and the so-called "personality rights." the mall doesn't want to be sued, so they have this policy. Since it is private property, they can make threats like that.

I don't know about confiscating the phone though.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Have the phone automatically upload photos by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 16:35 · Score: 0

If you're worried about mallcops and other imitation rent-a-cops deleting your legal, legitimate photos off your smartphone, check to see if there's a way to have the phone automatically upload pictures you take to a cloud service, or internet-connected NAS if you have one, that way even if they do force you to delete them off the phone, or even confiscate the phone to delete the photos themselves, you'll still have a copy of them.

All of the malls here in Omaha, NE have the same policy. I do not recall off the top of my head if it was a reaction to the Von Maur shooting, or if the policy had been in place from a time before then. I was in Crossroads Mall several months ago. Fully aware that it will be closing soon, I took a few spur-of-the-moment pictures with my smartphone, for historical purposes. A mallcop saw me though, and immediately confronted me. He gave me the whole spiel about how pictures are forbidden and that I can be reported as a terrorist to DHS, all that jazz. He threatened to call the real cops if I didn't immediately delete the pictures...which I did just to shut him up and get him off my back. Little did he know that my smartphone is set up to automatically upload any pictures I take to my internet-connected NAS at home, so deleting them off my phone was just for show, I still have copies of the pictures. Take that mallcops!

You'd think... by AngryDeuce · 2011-10-10 16:39 · Score: 2

In this economy, you'd think they would all but roll out the red carpet for anyone with disposable income.

Re:You'd think... by SomePgmr · 2011-10-10 16:51 · Score: 1

I'd guess the stores will be a little pissed about this, since it obviously got press. No doubt it started with some shitbrick Mall Ninja trying to feel important: http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/
Re:You'd think... by Builder · 2011-10-10 21:42 · Score: 1

Actually this one is worse. This one started where a member of staff at the kiosk who had just taken money from this man called security.

In Japan... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 16:39 · Score: 1

This is common, and you can see such signs in most shopping malls, etc. On the other hand, it is against their *rules*, which isn't even close to the same thing as being *illegal*.

Re:In Japan... by Xeno+man · 2011-10-10 18:49 · Score: 1

Very true. I have a rule that says no fat chicks, but they still exist and there is nothing I can do about it.

Lame response by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 16:39 · Score: 0

You should have told him to fuck off and make you delete the pics. Then let him try to put a hand on you. Then you sue, own the mall, and fire him as your first act as CEO.

Policy Change and Apology by JMM1986 · 2011-10-10 16:42 · Score: 2

Braehead shopping centre has changed their policy on the matter and issued an apology to Mr White. There was a facebook campaign to boycott the shopping centre, perhaps it was the power of social networking that put the pressure on them as it has hit 20,000+ likes in a very short time.

Abuses by InspectorGadget1964 · 2011-10-10 16:43 · Score: 2

If I ever find myself in such situation, (And I do not live in the UK) I would ask the officer for the law that specifically forbids me from performing a specific action. Having said that, on several occasions in Australia, I have been asked by security guards in shopping centres to show the contents of my backpack. Every single occasion I have refused as I will not accept being treated like a thief. I have had arguments with security staff and even with managers of the largest shopping chains. On one occasion the matter went all the way to the court as I had a security guard forcibly inspecting my backpack and I called the police. The security guard was charged with performing an illegal search, and lost his security license.

Re:Abuses by rastos1 · 2011-10-10 18:10 · Score: 1

I would ask the officer for the law that specifically forbids me from performing a specific action
There isn't such law. However it's their ground and their rules. You are free not to shop there. (Which is the right thing to do.)
Re:Abuses by gknoy · 2011-10-10 18:43 · Score: 1

They can ask you to leave, but they don't get to do the search. (Unless, I bet, you're in the UK?)
Re:Abuses by JasterBobaMereel · 2011-10-10 19:50 · Score: 1

In the UK they can ask to search your bag, and you can refuse, and they can escort you from the premises, and refuse to let you return ... and that's it ..
No arrest, (Except Citizens arrest just like anyone else) no search, no confiscation
Anything else they would have to pursue through the civil courts...if they can get your details, they cannot force you to identify yourself, and neither can a police officer unless they arrest you ....

--
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Re:Abuses by InspectorGadget1964 · 2011-10-19 13:35 · Score: 1

My point exactly. And it is not their shop their rules. Regardless of where you are, the law does apply, even in private property and the person taking the potpgraph has rights under the law. Unless you can prove otherwise, the shoping center guards and the cops were just commiting abuse by threatening a person with no justifiable reason.
Re:Abuses by rastos1 · 2011-10-20 07:21 · Score: 1

the law does apply, even in private property and the person taking the potpgraph has rights under the law
The owner has a right to own the property. "To own" means having right to decide what happens with the property. That includes the right to deny others the access or usage of property. I don't see what kind of law would grant the customer the right to use the property owned by someone else.

Gather 1000, Use Video This time by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 16:44 · Score: 0

I smell a flash mob with Video Cameras in 3..2..1..

I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by unassimilatible · 2011-10-10 16:44 · Score: 3, Informative

The mall cop could ask you to leave, and have you arrested for trespassing if you don't, but he sure as hell couldn't confiscate your camera without a serious lawsuit. If a mall security guard tried tho take my camera, I'd tell him to fuck himself. I am a lawyer (but not your lawyer), so just let them try to place their damned dirty ape hands on me!

Just like I tell them "no" when stores want to see my receipt as I exit the store. Businesses often purport to have rights they don't really have, i.e., "we reserve the right to inspect packages." There is no such right, absent a lawful shoplifting detention.

Don't be a sheep. Know your rights and stand up to unreasonable and intrusive behavior.

--
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you

Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 16:55 · Score: 0

Just like I tell them "no" when stores want to see my receipt as I exit the store.
As do I, but keep in mind there are exceptions such as membership only stores like Sam's Club and Costco where you sign a contract stating that you will do just that.
However, every time I've been to Fry's Electronics they want everyone to stop at the door and I just walk right past them.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by 4ndys · 2011-10-10 17:00 · Score: 1

I think people have missed a vital point with respect to the confiscation of the mobile phone. It was not the mall security guard who said he could confiscate the phone, but rather it was the *police officer* stating that under the Terrorism Act he could confiscate the phone.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 17:01 · Score: 0

I used to go to the Costco pharmacy as a non Costco member, and they still insisted on checking my bag, when it was obvious I just had my prescription. Yea, I'm gonna fit a twelve pack of shampoo in my purse... I eventually moved to a new pharmacy.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by Literaphile · 2011-10-10 17:07 · Score: 1

The mall cop could ask you to leave, and have you arrested for trespassing if you don't, but he sure as hell couldn't confiscate your camera without a serious lawsuit. If a mall security guard tried tho take my camera, I'd tell him to fuck himself. I am a lawyer (but not your lawyer), so just let them try to place their damned dirty ape hands on me!

Indeed. I am a lawyer too (but not your lawyer!), though in Canada. And up here, while this sort of thing varies from province to province, shopping malls are generally regarded as public spaces, which means that you can't be removed without a good reason. So if you're just standing around, doing something within the confines of the law (e.g. taking a picture), and a mall cop wants to throw you out, you can (attempt to) nail the mall owner for a Charter violation.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by SpiralSpirit · 2011-10-10 17:52 · Score: 1

I am not a lawyer, but I am an avid photographer in canada.
shopping malls are private property in the sense that someone owns them and can set the rules. If they ask you to leave because you were taking pictures, you are required to leave. Generally though there are signs posted, and the rent-a-cops won't kick you out without warning.
but they can take my camera from my cold dead fingers, or present a real police officer and a warrant from a judge.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by Gordonjcp · 2011-10-10 18:54 · Score: 1

The mall cop could ask you to leave, and have you arrested for trespassing if you don't,

There's no trespass law in Scotland.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by afabbro · 2011-10-10 18:54 · Score: 1

The mall cop could ask you to leave, and have you arrested for trespassing if you don't, but he sure as hell couldn't confiscate your camera without a serious lawsuit.
This exact thing happened to me in the U.S. Visited an old mall where I worked 20 years ago. Took out my camera (probably more noticeable because it was an actual camera, not a cell phone) and snapped some pics for nostalgia's sake. A guard walked up to me and told me that taking pictures was not allowed. I hesitated and she said that if I didn't put the camera away, I'd be asked to leave.
She didn't say it, but presumably if I refused to leave, she'd call the police and charge me with trespassing.
Perfectly within their rights - it's private property and I could make the same rule at my house if I wanted.
However, the idea that they can confiscate your camera is completely nuts.

--
Advice: on VPS providers
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 19:22 · Score: 0

Just like I tell them "no" when stores want to see my receipt as I exit the store. Businesses often purport to have rights they don't really have, i.e., "we reserve the right to inspect packages." There is no such right, absent a lawful shoplifting detention.
When they ask if they can see my receipt, I say SURE with a smile and keep walking. Nobody's ever followed me out to the car to actually try to view the receipt.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 19:49 · Score: 0

Of course in the UK trespassing itself isn't a criminal offence, so they would (should) have a hard time trying to arrest you unless you are causing some kind of damage.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-10-10 21:26 · Score: 1

Watch out, your ignorance is showing. In most jurisdictions, once the sale is complete, it's your property, not theirs. They have a chance to try to stop shoplifting up until it's your property, and they can use security tags if they want, but they cannot search your private property just because you're on their land.
So, yeah, it is a 'bill of rights' kind of thing.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by Builder · 2011-10-10 21:53 · Score: 1

Liar. There absolutely is trespass law in Scotland.
http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/index.php/Secrets/TrespassScottish
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 23:30 · Score: 0

> There is no such right, absent a lawful shoplifting detention.
Or that contract that you signed when you paid your annual membership dues. Refused your inspection? You just voluntarily terminated your contract, so you're free to walk out, but your account is canceled, and you'll never be allowed to shop at the chain again.
But hey, it's your right to refuse!
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 23:36 · Score: 0

The security guard did not confiscate the camera. Nor did the police officer who was subsequently called. The officer did assert that, under anti-terrorism law, he was within his right to confiscate the camera. That is the most serious issue raised here. The rest of the story is just about a very badly run shopping centre. Ultimately, the officer did not make good on his threat.
The Tory party (and lib dems, for what that's worth) raged against this sort of abuse of anti-terrorism law before they took office. Someone wake up Ken Clarke and see if he's not too busy selling cigarettes to third world children to do something about this.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by redelm · 2011-10-11 01:04 · Score: 1

You do understand exit guards ask for receipts so they can check their _cashiers_, not so much you unless you are working in cahoots.
Of course you can refuse. They can also bar you "don't come back" and have you arrested for trespassing if you return. Receipt checking may also be a part of agreed terms & conditions at warehouse "club" stores.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 02:10 · Score: 0

Just like I tell them "no" when stores want to see my receipt as I exit the store. Businesses often purport to have rights they don't really have, i.e., "we reserve the right to inspect packages." There is no such right, absent a lawful shoplifting detention.
I know some of the club type stores ask to see your receipt when you leave. They do it to everyone. Can I really tell them no? Or would it depend on the rules of the "club?" Also, would this be different in a Wal-Mart?
I honestly would like to know more about this topic.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by wiredog · 2011-10-11 02:29 · Score: 1

What if, as a condition of entering the mall, you agreed to allow them to confiscate the camera?
You do take time to read the list of The Rules posted at every entrance don't you?

--

Best Slashdot Co
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by rakaur · 2011-10-11 03:05 · Score: 1

That's great, but they can check their cashiers on THEIR time. They're not paying me to test their cashiers or their inventory tracking system, so straight to hell with that.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 03:14 · Score: 0

Don't be a sheep. Know your rights and stand up to unreasonable and intrusive behavior.
Like most Americans, I'm not a lawyer, and since any lawsuit filed against me could potentially bankrupt me since I'd have to hire council, I have to be more practical then that. Standing up for my rights isn't worth $10,000+ legal bills.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by redelm · 2011-10-11 03:33 · Score: 1

Actually, I think they _are_ paying me by offering lower prices and/or higher quality. The exit check is part of the deal. If you don't want it, shop elsewhere.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by rakaur · 2011-10-11 03:38 · Score: 1

I'd sure like to see data on that. If you mean club stores, maybe, but I don't shop at club stores.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by redelm · 2011-10-11 03:57 · Score: 1

Club store for 20+ years, and yes, they often (not always) have good deals.
The data is a wind up doing a lot of my buying at stores with checks (Fry's, BB) and less at stores without (CirCity, OfficeDepot, WalMart). I notice higher prices at the latter places.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by IgnoramusMaximus · 2011-10-11 04:16 · Score: 1

Actually, there are limits to what "rules" they can set. They can't kick you out for doing something that is in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a good lawyer would quickly demonstrate that taking pictures is one of those rights. Quibbles can be had on commercial use of those pictures but that is another matter altogether.
Otherwise the mall owners could set all sorts of wacko, arbitrary rules like: "No Blacks Allowed" or some such.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by SpiralSpirit · 2011-10-11 04:51 · Score: 1

they can certainly ban photography - its entirely legal to do so. They can also ban protests, etc.
Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you have a right to do it in my house, place of business, etc.
They can't discriminate, though.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by IgnoramusMaximus · 2011-10-11 05:18 · Score: 1

they can certainly ban photography - its entirely legal to do so. They can also ban protests, etc.

Err ... No.
Protests can be banned only if they "directly interfere with the conduct of business", which is why abortion clinics cannot get rid of people staging protests right in front but they can ensure that the protesters do not block access. This is also why protesters cannot protest inside because doing so would prevent the clinic from conducting business. There are also exceptions dealing with disturbing other patrons, which is why malls can ban drunks, pan-handlers and barefoot people from entering, but there specific limits as to what can be put in this category.

Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you have a right to do it in my house, place of business, etc.

Shopping malls, train stations etc are not just "places of business". Nor are they "your home". Their legal status is that of "public facility" and different rules apply than, say, in your home. You are for example quite allowed to be a complete racist and have no Asians on your "approved visitors" list in your home, which is not true for a store-front, never you mind a shopping mall or a stadium.
Businesses of course do all sorts of things that are going far beyond their rights, like for example football stadiums rifling through your possessions and refusing entry if you carry a professional camera or a pop drink that their overpriced vendors sell, but they do these things only because no one has sued their asses off for violations of the Charter yet (which is just a matter of time - lawsuits are very slooow).
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by SpiralSpirit · 2011-10-11 05:28 · Score: 1

I'm sorry you disagree, but its been long established that businesses can enforce no photography rules. They are not public in the same way the sidewalk is public. If an agent of the business asks you to leave, for whatever reason, you MUST leave, even if you plan to follow up discrimination accusations afterwards (although be prepared to prove it). Anything else is trespassing. Your right to photography doesn't exist in a mall or a store - they can ask you not to.
They are public in terms of expectation of privacy, but private in that they are owned by someone else and you cannot do whatever you wish willy nilly. They cannot search your bag without consent, though they can ask you to leave and call the police. They cannot confiscate your property.
They can ask you to stop photographing, or giving an impromptu recital, even though you technically have the right in the charter to do it. Just elsewhere.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 05:33 · Score: 0

IANAL but I have read quite a bit about this topic. I glad to hear a lawyer confim my own conclusions. BTW: my attitude towards these peopel is pretty much the same as yours.
Cheers
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by IgnoramusMaximus · 2011-10-11 06:15 · Score: 1

I'm sorry you disagree, but its been long established that businesses can enforce no photography rules.

Where?
Has the Supreme Court ruled on it? I don't think so. The fact that a demand is commonly made and enforced and even if the sheepish public goes along with it does not mean that it is lawful.
Any court challenge would quickly show that such a ban not only violates the Charter but it would also be unenforceable since the definition of a "camera" now includes cell phones, key-chain ornaments and other hidden pin-hole cameras. Validation of such arbitrary rule making would simply allow an end-run against prohibition against racial discrimination - all that a racist mall owner had to do would be to selectively enforce the rule on Black cell-phone owners, which today would mean nearly 100% of Black customers, and to use an excuse of "we didn't see anyone else taking pictures".

They cannot search your bag without consent, though they can ask you to leave and call the police.

That is indeed their right but if they do so for something that is protected in the Charter, you have the recourse of suing them for it. The fact that very, very few people know about it and even fewer will sue is what makes the mall owners feel that they can get away with nearly anything. Wide-spread success of mall and stadium owners in mass violations of their customer rights without any visible repercussions is what makes you believe their propaganda and what makes you so adamant in your efforts to give up even more of your rights and to ultimately enshrine these very violations as a de-facto law.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by SpiralSpirit · 2011-10-11 06:38 · Score: 1

while your ad-absurdum attempts at creating an artifical reality are amusing, public malls are still privately owned. The owner can make rules there, and your attempts to enforce your right will certainly infringe on his. As he is the owner, he can mandate no photography in his mall.
It's never gone to the supreme court because it would be ridiculous in the case being described. The mall certainly has a right to enforce a no photography policy, and the guy has the right to stand outside mall property and take pictures to his heart's content.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by IgnoramusMaximus · 2011-10-11 07:06 · Score: 1

The owner can make rules there, and your attempts to enforce your right will certainly infringe on his.

As it was pointed out multiple times to you, his rights to make rules on his property cannot override the rules of the society at large. Otherwise he would be able to "mandate" your bloody murder via an axe as soon as you stepped onto his property too. The Charter is supreme to what he can "mandate" on his property, even if you and him both are willing to pretend otherwise.

It's never gone to the supreme court because it would be ridiculous in the case being described.

"Ridiculous" is the exact same word which the shop owners in the Southern states used when it was suggested to them that their "No Dogs and Blacks" rule was unconstitutional. I already pointed out that the very definitions of a "camera" and "taking pictures" make such rules systematically unenforceable and thus their enforcement would have to be, by definition, completely arbitrary - something that is clearly not allowed under the Charter.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by SpiralSpirit · 2011-10-11 07:20 · Score: 1

As it was pointed out multiple times to you, his rights to make rules on his property cannot override the rules of the society at large.

except your infringing on his charter rights on his property. Its the reason why abortion protesters have to stand outside the property, even though they certainly have a right to protest. Just because you have a right to photograph doesn't mean you have a right to photograph in someone else's place of business.

I already pointed out that the very definitions of a "camera" and "taking pictures" make such rules systematically unenforceable and thus their enforcement would have to be, by definition, completely arbitrary - something that is clearly not allowed under the Charter.

A sign saying "no photography", or a guard saying you can't take pictures, is neither unenforceable nor vague. I do photography. If you decide your right to photograph is more important than the right of the store owner to decide whether or not someone takes photos in his store, you will soon be asked to leave. If you still stick around, you will be arrested and charged with trespassing, and it will never see the supreme court because your charter rights don't necessarily invalidate other people's rights.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by toriver · 2011-10-11 07:38 · Score: 1

They should start with "0. Rules are void where they conflict with The Fucking Law" though.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by IgnoramusMaximus · 2011-10-11 08:15 · Score: 1

except your infringing on his charter rights on his property.

No I don't. Point me out to the Charter where it says something to the effect of "and you get to make any rule you want on your property, even to nullify this Charter". I dare you.

Its the reason why abortion protesters have to stand outside the property, even though they certainly have a right to protest. Just because you have a right to photograph doesn't mean you have a right to photograph in someone else's place of business.

I already pointed out that the reason is not that they are protesters (btw, define a "protester" - does he need a banner? does he need to shout? or a mere t-shirt would do? or maybe even a coloured ribbon on his arm? do you get to throw out anyone whose looks you don't like?) it is because they are not allowed to obstruct business, which is a separate, specific law!

A sign saying "no photography", or a guard saying you can't take pictures, is neither unenforceable nor vague.

My sunglasses take photos. Enforce your "no photography" rule on me. Oh, you can't tell which sunglasses take photos? How about cell phones? Is that phone I am talking on taking photos? How can you tell?
As I said, unenforceable without either outright violations of the Charter (such as searches and confiscation of possessions) or wholly arbitrary "enforcement" ("Hey, I don't like the looks of you! You bloody Chinese are always taking photos! Get out!")
This should be glaringly obvious to anyone with even an iota of common sense.

... because your charter rights don't necessarily invalidate other people's rights.

So what you are saying is that other people's rights ("property owner's" rights in particular) invalidate my rights!
This has, of course, been always the position of all land owners since times immemorial, with many actually claiming that whomever was on their property had no rights whatsoever and was in fact not a person but their property also!
Its the "property ownership overrides all human rights" motto that is the very darling of moneyed interests world over.
Unfortunately for them, silly documents like the Charter are, so far, still more potent then their greed and desire to control others.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by SpiralSpirit · 2011-10-11 08:46 · Score: 1

property ownership does not override rights, but charter rights do not rule out other rights either.

quote:

"The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Harrison v. Carswell,(3) commented upon property rights in Canadian law as follows:

Ango-Canadian jurisprudence has traditionally recognized, as a fundamental freedom, the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, of any interest therein, save by due process of law.(4)

Section 26 of the Charter stipulates that:

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada."

your claims that charter rights supercede a persons right to property and the security of their property are not how courts have ruled, at all, ever.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by Kaenneth · 2011-10-11 08:52 · Score: 1

That sounds like a great idea, until you have an encounter like mine, where the door checker at Fry's noticed an item was rung up twice when I only had one... saved me $20 right there.
The door checkers arn't to catch customers, but employees, doing scams like ringing up $1000 items for $10 for a friend.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by SpiralSpirit · 2011-10-11 09:02 · Score: 1

as well the Canadian Bill of Rights (passed 1960 and still in force)

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;,
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;,
(c) freedom of religion;,
(d) freedom of speech;,
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and,
(f) freedom of the press.,

and the charter does not mean that other rights do not exist, (section 26 of the charter)
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by IgnoramusMaximus · 2011-10-11 11:12 · Score: 1

Ango-Canadian jurisprudence has traditionally recognized, as a fundamental freedom, the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, of any interest therein, save by due process of law.(4)

That means that I can't take shit away from you without a due process. It does not mean that you can do whatever you want with your stuff, you can't kill people with your knife - even if it is yours, and you can't do whatever you want with people on your property - even if it is yours.

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada

This means that the Charter does not remove any other rights people have IN ADDITION to the charter, i.e. it is cumulative with other existing rights! It does NOT mean that other rights can replace the Charter!

your claims that charter rights supercede a persons right to property and the security of their property are not how courts have ruled, at all, ever.

Given your reading comprehension problems above, this discussion is going nowhere.
Also, I never claimed that the Charter removes someone's right to property, I said that the right to property cannot be used to override someone's Charter rights. The fact that you are an owner of a crowbar does not give you the right to use it to brain random passer-bys, even if they are on a plot of land you own.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by IgnoramusMaximus · 2011-10-11 11:18 · Score: 1

and the charter does not mean that other rights do not exist, (section 26 of the charter)

Which is irrelevant to the discussion since I never claimed that the Charter replaces all other rights. But in situations when other rights conflict with the Charter, it is the charter that wins. Otherwise it would be quite pointless if everyone with a parcel of land could set up his or her own sovereign kingdom and do whatever he or she wished with anyone who was unlucky enough to set foot on it, which seems to be your very interpretation of the law, that the land owner's right to do what he wants with it overrides everything, including another person's right to life!
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by SpiralSpirit · 2011-10-11 11:24 · Score: 1

I think your interpretation of what the charter allows you to do is overly broad. By your interpretation I can walk into your house and take pictures of you, since the charter gives you no rights of privacy while my right to photograph is in charter, and technically in the charter you have no right to a house either. I'm going to stop arguing here, because I think you're wrong and nothing will convince you. You've taken the charter and done a harry potter 'reductio ad absurdum' on it, and come up with a similar work of fiction.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by IgnoramusMaximus · 2011-10-11 11:37 · Score: 1

By your interpretation I can walk into your house and take pictures of you, since the charter gives you no rights of privacy while my right to photograph is in charter, and technically in the charter you have no right to a house either.

That is not so, I can deny you entry into my house. But once you are in, you have rights that I cannot take away from you. You do not become by slave just because you entered my house.
Similarly, if I leave a window open and you take a shot of me with your camera from the street I cannot get you to give it up because my right to privacy ended the moment I paraded before the open window.
The charter guarantees you right to property (like a house), but it is limited by other people's charter rights! You having a house does not make you into an absolute monarch!

I'm going to stop arguing here, because I think you're wrong and nothing will convince you. You've taken the charter and done a harry potter 'reductio ad absurdum' on it, and come up with a similar work of fiction.

If I were wrong, every mall owner could carry out executions of shoplifters and sell tickets to them for the other mall-goers, since Charter rights would not apply in his mall!
It is you who clearly fantasizes about your property rights granting you supreme power over everyone who sets foot on your land.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by mhotchin · 2011-10-11 15:33 · Score: 1

Then, when you refuse, their only option is... to ask you to leave.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by niftymitch · 2011-10-13 12:28 · Score: 1

I am not a lawyer, but...snip....
shopping malls are private property in the sense that someone owns them and can set the rules. ....snip....
And if the property is leased.
Ownership has some rights and responsibilities.
So does being a renter or lease holder.
So does being the tax payer.
Who holds the property deed?
In some areas not too far the property is
owned in whole or in part by a tribal
council of American Indians. Now the
law gets real murky.

--
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
Re:I can't speak for UK law, but here in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 06:43 · Score: 0

Actually, I think they _are_ paying me by offering lower prices and/or higher quality. The exit check is part of the deal. If you don't want it, shop elsewhere.
I don't know what place you're talking about, but the two "club" stores my relatives have had a membership at has a yearly membership fee. If you take into account the money saved on every trip (combined), then the total at the end of the year "saved" was LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE MEMBERSHIP FEE.

Get a life by lucm · 2011-10-10 16:48 · Score: 0, Troll

The real question here is: why do people need so badly to take pictures and upload them to Facebook all the time? What is the amount of said pictures that are actually looked at by anyone? It's like those thousands of smartphones raised in the air during concerts so people can upload shitty clips to Youtube. Everyone is broadcasting, no one is watching.

People don't have a life anymore. They have pictures and youtube clips.

--
lucm, indeed.

Re:Get a life by nrozema · 2011-10-10 16:59 · Score: 3, Funny

The real question here is: why do people need so badly to take pictures and upload them to Facebook all the time?
Yes, I for one am completely perplexed by this new found fascination with photographing your own kids. It's so strange.
Re:Get a life by GrahamCox · 2011-10-10 17:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, that is NOT the real question. The real question is why the fuck we are building a society for ourselves that is undoing all the hard-won freedoms we've fought for and earned in the last few hundred years. If one of the ways people exercise those freedoms is to tweet and blog all day long, theta's up to them. You're also free to ignore them.

Cherish it, it clearly isn't going to last.
Re:Get a life by MunkieLife · 2011-10-10 17:10 · Score: 1

Why do I never have mod points anymore? Mod up, +1.
Re:Get a life by sjames · 2011-10-10 17:12 · Score: 1

You might be surprised to learn that one of the first applications of practical personal photography has been proud parents taking informal photos of their kids. It seems to be quite popular. That was a few years before the internet, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
Re:Get a life by lucm · 2011-10-10 17:31 · Score: 1

If you read the article, by the time the police was involved the picture was already on Facebook. This goes beyond taking pictures of your own kid.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Get a life by Killjoy_NL · 2011-10-10 17:33 · Score: 1

Other peoples kids however, hubba hubba.
I kid ;)

--
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Re:Get a life by lucm · 2011-10-10 17:39 · Score: 0

> why the fuck we are building a society for ourselves that is undoing all the hard-won freedoms we've fought for and earned in the last few hundred years
What freedom exactly is being undone by not allowing pictures to be taken on private property (like a mall)? If people can "tweet and blog" all day, how come the owners of the mall are not allowed to establish rules for their own private building? I think your definition of freedom is selective.
> Cherish it, it clearly isn't going to last.
Yeah, clearly the System is going down the drain, the Evil Shopping Malls Owners are ought to steal our freedom.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Get a life by sjames · 2011-10-10 17:50 · Score: 1

how come the owners of the mall are not allowed to establish rules for their own private building?
They are perfectly free to do that as soon as it is closed to the public. They can put up the signs indicating that there is no public shopping there and lock the doors, then whatever they say (within the limits of the law) will go. Naturally, the tenants might choose to leave at that point, but that's just the natural consequences of their actions.
Re:Get a life by Pooua · 2011-10-10 17:52 · Score: 1

You make a good point, but why stop just at photography? Why do people need to spend so much time, money and effort in sports events? Think of how much more advanced the human race would be if, instead of spending time and money watching a ball or an animal race around, we were to invest in new materials processes, science and exploration! A city near my home recently spent nearly a billion dollars (US) building a sports stadium. Why not build a rocket complex? Why not build a particle accelerator? Oh, speaking of which... my country just shut down its only large particle accelerator. But, we are building sports complexes all over the place!

--
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Re:Get a life by adamofgreyskull · 2011-10-10 17:59 · Score: 1

By 1960, 55% of all photographs ever taken were of babies; recording the lives of one's children is not a new endeavour. I have precisely 0 interest in seeing a picture of a random child, but I genuinely do like seeing pictures of my friend's children as they grow up. Automatically uploading pictures to Facebook/Flickr/G+ isn't some strange dark new magic, it's standard tech. I can take my 'phone, hold down the "camera" button, *click* and share it instantly yet you talk like the people doing this are taking huge amounts of time out of their day...

By the by, if you want to rant about people filming music concerts, why don't you just wait for the next story about illegal filming at a music concert? Your comment seems a tad contrived in this context.
Re:Get a life by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 18:00 · Score: 0

I kid ;)
Oh, so that's what you perverts call it these days, is it? "Kidding"?
Re:Get a life by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 18:05 · Score: 0

If you read the article, by the time the police was[sic] involved the picture was already on Facebook. This goes beyond taking pictures of your own kid.
If you read the article, by the time the security guard was involved, the picture was already on Facebook. I really don't understand why you have such a problem with someone sharing a picture of their own child on Facebook.
Re:Get a life by lucm · 2011-10-10 18:21 · Score: 1

> They are perfectly free to do that as soon as it is closed to the public.
Being open for business does not mean that the mall is "public" like the street. A mall is a private property, just like a movie theater or a restaurant or a casino, and as such, any customer walking in is a guest and must comply to the rules established by the rightful owners. Like any commercial building the mall is subject to specific laws, such as complying with the fire department regulations, but this is still a private property.
The title of the article is misleading - "illegal" does not apply here. It's a private matter, and by proposing a ban on this mall the guy who was displeased with the mall rules is doing the right thing since no law was broken.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Get a life by lucm · 2011-10-10 18:32 · Score: 1

> If you read the article, by the time the security guard was involved, the picture was already on Facebook.
Since the police came *after* the guard, then both descriptions are correct.
> I really don't understand why you have such a problem with someone sharing a picture of their own child on Facebook.
Because the culture of uploading pictures to Facebook makes the society fake and shallow, with everything being staged for a good pose. Just walk on the street, it's everywhere - people are even taking picture of themselves when they are alone. Millions and millions of those pictures are uploaded every day - what for?
The other day I saw this student demonstration on the street, thousands of students. And while they were marching, hundreds of them were texting (probably tweeting "I'm in a demonstration") and taking pictures of themselves; they were not *there*, they were staging themselves for pictures and tweets. This is beyond shallow.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Get a life by syousef · 2011-10-10 18:43 · Score: 1

The real question here is: why do people need so badly to take pictures and upload them to Facebook all the time? What is the amount of said pictures that are actually looked at by anyone? It's like those thousands of smartphones raised in the air during concerts so people can upload shitty clips to Youtube. Everyone is broadcasting, no one is watching.
People don't have a life anymore. They have pictures and youtube clips.
No, the real questions here are:
- Why do you care? It is literally none of your business.
- What do you think gives you the right to decide for other people what they may or may not do, based only on your opinion that it is a waste of time?

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Re:Get a life by lucm · 2011-10-10 18:45 · Score: 1

If the money was spent on sports where the people are involved, at least it would lead to a generation of healthy imbeciles. Instead it's all about entertainment - that's what those buildings are, it's not sport when you are seated, drinking a beer, it's entertainment.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Get a life by lucm · 2011-10-10 19:06 · Score: 1

No, the real questions here are:
- Why do you care? It is literally none of your business.
- What do you think gives you the right to decide for other people what they may or may not do, based only on your opinion that it is a waste of time?
This brilliant comment could very well be the beginning of a recursive and endless loop.
So tell me: why do *you* care why I care? And what do you think gives *you* the right to decide for other people [etc]

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Get a life by sjames · 2011-10-10 19:24 · Score: 2

Open to the public isn't the same as public property, but it DOES impose a number of limitations that would not apply to private property that is not open to the public. For example, in my home, I can be as racist as I like. I need not ever invite anyone of a race I don't like into my home. A place that is open to the public does NOT have that option.
Re:Get a life by dbet · 2011-10-10 19:35 · Score: 2

Um, I was the same age as the girl in the photo in 1977, and I can assure you my parents took a ton of photos of me, and now that we're all older, they seem to enjoy them.

Photographing your kids is nothing new and it seems to bring people a lot of joy, so why have a problem with it.
Re:Get a life by Asic+Eng · 2011-10-10 19:51 · Score: 1

Because the culture of uploading pictures to Facebook makes the society fake and shallow,
Yeah, before uploading pictures to Facebook everything was deep and genuine.
Once you have children you'll get constantly pestered by your parents and assorted other family for updates, Facebook or Google+ are good ways to distribute them.
As for demonstrations: the *whole* point there is to be seen, to make as much of a media impact as possible.
Re:Get a life by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 20:53 · Score: 0

That's because the "we" who are building the society and the "we" who earned the freedoms are not the same group, and the former is gaining power at the expense of the latter.
Re:Get a life by richlv · 2011-10-10 21:20 · Score: 1

no offence, but fuck off :)
i don't take many photos nowadays (i did much more when i got my hands on the first digital camera...), but i don't want to be assaulted by some idiot when i do. and no, i don't upload them facebook (i don't even have an account there) or anywhere else. absolute majority of them are for private use/sharing with friends

--
Rich
Re:Get a life by moonbender · 2011-10-10 23:13 · Score: 1

What freedom exactly is being undone by not allowing pictures to be taken on private property (like a mall)?
Okay, let me spell it out for you: As malls get increasingly popular, people spend more and more time on private property. While people used to be able to walk around their town and take photos, they are increasingly unable to do so. And obviously, malls aren't the only places that used to be public but now aren't and taking photographs is only the least of the things people lose. Being searched on entry or exit? Wow. I'm assuming political speech is out too, but of course people like you are going to jump up and down screaming "it's not censorship because it's not the government doing so".
The ideal solution would be to raze the fucking malls and reassert public ownership of things like public transport, but in case that clashes with ideology, you can walk a middle ground of extending some civic rights to these places. This isn't particularly insane, last year a German court ruled that Frankfurt airport (a corporation where the public is a major stock holder) could not abolish the freedom of assembly on their premises.

--
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Re:Get a life by lucm · 2011-10-11 00:05 · Score: 1

> malls aren't the only places that used to be public but now aren't
Do you have a date as to when the malls went from being public to not being public? As far as I remember, they were private property. But maybe I've been brainwashed after watching Mallrats too many times.
Also if you could name one or two of those other places that used to be public but are not anymore, it would be interesting. Unless you talk about those government buildings that were sold to developers who built condos.
> The ideal solution would be to raze the fucking malls
Yes, that sounds like an appropriate solution to protect freedom. After all, it is well-know that malls are a direct threat against freedom and democracy (especially those where the food courts have a 30-minute seating limit to prevent loitering). Also there must be a reason why Jesus went postal when he saw that the temple was becoming a mall.
Just to be sure, we should not only raze the malls but also spread one foot of salt on the grounds where they stood to make sure that nothing ever grows again on such forsaken land.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Get a life by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-10-11 00:22 · Score: 1

There is a real easy answer to this question. The reason this is happening is because people keep asking the government to "solve" ever more problems. In addition, instead of trying to solve those problems that are properly the business of government at the local level, people try to get them addressed at the state or federal level.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Get a life by moonbender · 2011-10-11 01:27 · Score: 1

And again, you get 8/10 for snark, but not a whole lot of points for thinking along. The modern kind of mall always was a largely private thing (though often generously subsidised, no doubt), but instead of walking around in a private mall to visit stores, you could also walk around on public streets to visit stores. I guess it's fair to put modern malls in one line with market places (eminently public places) and market halls (e.g. this, don't know if those were typically publicly owned). Another example for public places that are now sort of private are all kinds of public transportation, e.g. the FFM airport case I referred to or the MTA Photo Ban thing which was discussed on Slashdot on numerous occasions.

--
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Re:Get a life by swillden · 2011-10-11 02:23 · Score: 1

There is a real easy answer to this question. The reason this is happening is because people keep asking the government to "solve" ever more problems. In addition, instead of trying to solve those problems that are properly the business of government at the local level, people try to get them addressed at the state or federal level.
Of course they do. People will use the most effective tool available, the one that gives them the best leverage to accomplish their goals. Unless it's a purely local problem they're trying to solve, they'll naturally reach for the biggest hammer. This is why giving government such broad, sweeping power is a bad idea. It *will* be used.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Get a life by lucm · 2011-10-11 02:25 · Score: 1

In many western countries malls are disappearing, they are being replaced by shopping districts where superstores, specialized boutiques, hotels and entertainment complexes are close to each other but are separate buildings. Those shopping districts are still private property, where access is a privilege governed by the owner's rules and enforced by private security. Just as with casinos, taking pictures in those areas is not illegal but if frowned upon and might cause the security to intervene.
Preventing patrons to take pictures is not done by evil corporations wishing to destroy freedom. It is a simple, practical solution to enforce the expectation of privacy of the other guests as well as an easy way to minimize exposure to lawsuits. In many countries the privacy laws are in effect binding a corporation to protect privacy in self-defined boundaries; this means that if the owners of a mall are allowing patrons to take pictures, they must also take measures to protect the privacy of everybody appearing on those pictures, which is unrealistic. By forbidding pictures but not strongly enforcing the rule, corporations are basically shielding themselves from lawsuits, but in situations where there are complaints (such as the posted article where employees found the guy suspect) it is in their best interest to act.
This is the same logic with internet access at the office. Most employers will state that internet access is provided only for official business, which removes the expectation of privacy from employees (and therefore removes ground for most privacy lawsuits), but do not enforce the rule unless some abuse is reported.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Get a life by Candid88 · 2011-10-11 04:55 · Score: 1

The even easier answer is just to ignore idiotic security guards talking out their backside, claiming they have legal powers that they do not.
No philosophical discussions about the role of government in society required.
Re:Get a life by toriver · 2011-10-11 07:41 · Score: 1

Because the culture of uploading pictures to Facebook makes the society fake and shallow
While the old culture of taking pictures and putting them in albums you showed to every poor visitor was not?
Re:Get a life by lucm · 2011-10-11 08:15 · Score: 1

Taking a picture used to be a significant moment, and because of the work involved from the pose to the drive to the mall to drop the film to the selection and preparation for the album it meant something. Now there is essentially no work involved so people take pictures all the time, putting everyone in a constant state of staging. It's like everyone is a hollywood star except the paparazzi are themselves, and no one is interested in buying the pictures but everybody keeps uploading.
It's cheap and fake. Broadcasting yourself, as they say.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Get a life by syousef · 2011-10-11 09:38 · Score: 1

No, the real questions here are:
- Why do you care? It is literally none of your business.
- What do you think gives you the right to decide for other people what they may or may not do, based only on your opinion that it is a waste of time?
This brilliant comment could very well be the beginning of a recursive and endless loop.
So tell me: why do *you* care why I care? And what do you think gives *you* the right to decide for other people [etc]
There's no recursion here. You have decided what others should do. The only way in which I have decided is that I wish to prevent you from taking away this freedom. If you can't wrap your head around that, think of the GPL. The only restriction it seeks to enforce is that derived code remains free and available for others to modify. If you claim you still can't wrap your head around the difference I suggest your post is no more than an attempt to be childish. "I know you are but what am I?".

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Re:Get a life by lucm · 2011-10-11 13:11 · Score: 1

No, the real questions here are:
- Why do you care? It is literally none of your business.
- What do you think gives you the right to decide for other people what they may or may not do, based only on your opinion that it is a waste of time?
This brilliant comment could very well be the beginning of a recursive and endless loop.
So tell me: why do *you* care why I care? And what do you think gives *you* the right to decide for other people [etc]
There's no recursion here. You have decided what others should do. The only way in which I have decided [...]
Thanks to confirm that *you* have decided what others should do.
(I would like to point out that I did not "decide" anything in the first place, I just made a comment, but this endless loop has now a life of its own).

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Get a life by syousef · 2011-10-11 16:03 · Score: 1

Thanks to confirm that *you* have decided what others should do.
(I would like to point out that I did not "decide" anything in the first place, I just made a comment, but this endless loop has now a life of its own).
As I suspect, you're a child, and one that doesn't understand a terminating case in recursion to boot. Have a good day. Don't bite others.

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Re:Get a life by lucm · 2011-10-11 16:36 · Score: 1

> As I suspect, you're a child
Obviously. You can decide what other people can or cannot do, so you also can decide who is a child and who is not.
> one that doesn't understand a terminating case in recursion to boot
You started an "endless" recursion loop and now you are mad that I won't "terminate" it. If someone does not understand something, it's you.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Get a life by syousef · 2011-10-11 17:14 · Score: 1

> As I suspect, you're a child
Obviously. You can decide what other people can or cannot do, so you also can decide who is a child and who is not.
> one that doesn't understand a terminating case in recursion to boot
You started an "endless" recursion loop and now you are mad that I won't "terminate" it. If someone does not understand something, it's you.
You forgot to call me a poopie head. Grow up. You can have the last word now. I have more important things to do.

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Re:Get a life by lucm · 2011-10-11 17:25 · Score: 1

> You forgot to call me a poopie head. Grow up.
By saying "poopie head" and "grow up" in the same comment, are you being sarcastic, or is it just another demonstration of your inability to see that you contradict yourself frequently?
> I have more important things to do.
This thread has been going on for a while, so I am pretty sure you don't have more important things to do. Unless you mean starting other endless loops somewhere else.

--
lucm, indeed.

Godwined in 13 minutes by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 16:53 · Score: 0

A job well done, sir!

Re:This is fairly common, it's not really news-wor by aXis100 · 2011-10-10 16:55 · Score: 1

Also, there is a huge difference between "illegal" and "against policy".

As commercial private property, shopping centres can ask you to leave for whatever (reasonable) reason they see fit, and if you dont comply, can be forced by police under trespassing laws. Breaking their policies in the first place however is not illegal.

But it was a UK police officer by unassimilatible · 2011-10-10 17:04 · Score: 1

We have this thing called a Fourth Amendment here in the US, Jerry Brown notwithstanding. Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a barrister!

--
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you

Re:But it was a UK police officer by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 21:28 · Score: 0

Try flying with $10,001 on you. They'll pronounce you a drug dealer and take your money, and you'll have to successfully sue the government to get it back. The 4th Amendment has been dead since Nixon declared the War on Drugs.
Re:But it was a UK police officer by Tjp($)pjT · 2011-10-11 08:09 · Score: 1

Try flying with $10,001 on you. They'll pronounce you a drug dealer and take your money, and you'll have to successfully sue the government to get it back. The 4th Amendment has been dead since Nixon declared the War on Drugs.
You can fly with any amount you care to in the US. You are required to declare it on international flights. And it is always a good idea to have the documentation of the source like a withdrawal record from the bank ... that said ... they may still confiscate it. But if you've shown the documentation you'll eventually get it back and have grounds likely for damages (after all you were likely flying somewhere to buy something ... and missed the opportunity ...) You never want to have large sums undocumented as they will do an interesting thing allowed under the US RICO laws. The local police will confiscate it, then hand it over to the FBI. The FBI gives a 10% "kickback" to the local LEOs. You'll recover the amount given the FBI (90%) but the 10% to the LEOs has bureaucratically been laundered out of existence.

--
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

So now, apparently, policy becomes law... by SwedishChef · 2011-10-10 17:05 · Score: 1

I can't wait for this to take hold in the USA... stores, businesses, theme parks... they could all just write up a policy and the police could enforce it for them.

What irony... police officers enforcing a "no cameras" policy in a public place in the UK.

--
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!

Re:So now, apparently, policy becomes law... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 20:21 · Score: 0

What irony... police officers enforcing a "no cameras" policy in a public place in the UK.
No no no, it's not 'no cameras'. it's 'no cameras not under our [police] control'

Just do it by cyberfringe · 2011-10-10 17:06 · Score: 2

If this happened to me I would make a big scene, refuse to turn over the camera and also charge anyone who tried to take away my camera with assault and theft. If the mall guards detained me I would arrest them for false imprisonment. People cannot go like sheep. You must fight back with barred teeth.

--
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Re:Just do it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 17:27 · Score: 0

No you wouldn't. You'd start to talk back, then the cop would raise the stakes. If you re-raise, you get tazed, maced, arrested or shot. If you comply & give up the cell phone, you'll pussy out & make a blogger post because you've never talked to a lawyer in your life.
Prove me wrong.
Re:Just do it by QuasiEvil · 2011-10-10 17:43 · Score: 1

Raising a big scene is exactly the wrong thing to do. Gets everybody worked into a pissing match. The correct answer is just to know your rights, assert them, and calmly call in bigger guns if really necessary.
And yes, I speak as someone who has raised the stakes with a rent-a-goon when I was being harassed on a public sidewalk. I called the real cops. They showed up, asked a few questions, and told the rent-a-goon to take a hike and learn that his authority ended at the edge of their property several hundred feet away.
I take any erosion of my photography rights very seriously, given the irrational paranoia society we've lived in here in the US for the last decade. I mean for fuck's sake, in the case above I was standing on a public sidewalk in broad daylight with a giant f'ing SLR (1Ds III and a 28-300L, which isn't a small combo for those who know their Canon gear). It's not like I'm trying to hide or be stealthy about anything, yet the rent-a-thug seemed to think I was some sort of imminent security threat.
Re:Just do it by Taco+Cowboy · 2011-10-10 17:52 · Score: 1

Raising a big scene is exactly the wrong thing to do. Gets everybody worked into a pissing match. The correct answer is just to know your rights, assert them, and calmly call in bigger guns if really necessary.
The mall already got their big guns (security guards) harassing you, and they in turn got their even bigger guns (the po-lice) and they are telling you that they gonna take your cell / camera away.
And you are telling us you can stay calm?
Fuck you, man ! You make no sense at all !!

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Re:Just do it by SpiralSpirit · 2011-10-10 17:55 · Score: 1

I had a cop come look at my 1dmk2 and 70-200 f/2.8, tell me I had a nice camera, and leave. rent-a-cops are the worst, though.
Re:Just do it by MattBurke · 2011-10-10 19:16 · Score: 1

> And you are telling us you can stay calm?
and what happens to the guy's daughter while her daddy's being arrested for terrorism-related offences?
Re:Just do it by dbet · 2011-10-10 19:37 · Score: 1

Where are you from, Prisonland? In the malls here, security guards do not carry mace, tazers, or handcuffs. They have one thing only, a 2-way radio.
Re:Just do it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 00:37 · Score: 0

Meanwhile, back in the real world rather than your fantasy world, you would been arrested, likely with assault, trespass, likely blacklisted as a terrorists (ensuring you could never fly commercial again, denied entry to various government buildings). Likewise these new found charges may give reason for your job to fire you. All of which happened in front of your child. Furthermore, since you are a violent terrorists, none of the assault and theft charges you insanely demanded would have been filed; which makes since as they're not valid in the first place.

You must fight back with barred teeth.
Let us know how well that works from your jail cell or the side of the road, begging for food and money, where the rest of your future likely resides.
Re:Just do it by gsnedders · 2011-10-11 02:32 · Score: 1

In the Scotland at least I believe the mall's guards could claim they have performed a citizen's arrest for trespass (for the mall is private property) in lieu of any police being present.
Re:Just do it by codegen · 2011-10-11 02:48 · Score: 1

If you read the original posts by the person involved, he would have made the scene if he had been alone. However, he had is very young daughter with him (the subject of the photo involved), which he felt limited his actions.

--
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
Re:Just do it by jedidiah · 2011-10-11 05:23 · Score: 1

A mall cop cannot arrest me.
The cop that comes to clean up the mess can arrest me.
The mall cop is just a hopeless wannabe.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Paranoia by FyberOptic · 2011-10-10 17:07 · Score: 1

It's kind of ironic how out of control this "no photos" thing is nowadays, because cameras can be so small, either part of your phone or just slip right in your pocket, that people should be able to capture more spontaneous moments, to post on all of the social media or online photo sites that are available today. Instead, people are going to have to worry about getting their freaking phones confiscated.

And then, to make matters worse, police are apparently also allowed to nose around in your phone without a warrant. So even though your Facebook and Twitter and all that are normally password-protected accounts for your data and would require an official request to get access, police can just click the icon on your phone and look as they please.

I hate where all of this is leading.

Re:Paranoia by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 17:10 · Score: 0

I never used to be worried about this, have installed passwords on my phone for this and other reasons. The public need to be educated on the dangers.
Re:Paranoia by hedwards · 2011-10-10 17:41 · Score: 1

These policies tend to go on until security has to tell somebody important that they need management's approval to take photos. That was how that policy ended at the building I used to work at. Personally, I thought the policy was somewhat silly as it wasn't focused on photos of areas that were at all sensitive and ultimately there were drawings of the entire building online every time there was a build out for a new maintenance contract.
At the end of the day, you could get a photo and forward it to the FBI, but that's about it, few if any of the photos would ever be of any actual utility as the folks that were really up to no good were most likely never observed.
Re:Paranoia by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 06:50 · Score: 0

It's kind of ironic how out of control this "no photos" thing is nowadays, because cameras can be so small, either part of your phone or just slip right in your pocket, that people should be able to capture more spontaneous moments, to post on all of the social media or online photo sites that are available today.

No kidding. You're completely correct on this one, commenter! It's the same crap as the airports - it's not about safety. It's about the FEELING of safety. The ones enforcing it don't have a damn clue while they enforce, however. That is just plain sad. Sad, sad, sad.

TFA: Never states Security Guard could take Camera by jbov · 2011-10-10 17:10 · Score: 2

There are already many posts on here questioning whether or not the security guard could legally confiscate the camera. The posts title is be a bit misleading. It is a case of having too many antecedents to choose from for the pronoun "he". The article does _not_ state that the security guard was within his rights to confiscate the camera. It states that the _officer_ was withing his rights to confiscate the camera.

Not dubious at all by msobkow · 2011-10-10 17:10 · Score: 1

A security guard has the right to detain you and call police to have you arrested. They have the right to ask you to leave.

That is ALL they have the right to do.

They are NOT police officers, though an obscene number of them are power-crazed wannabe-jackboots who THINK they have authority.

The security guard STOLE the camera. Period.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Re:Not dubious at all by Orffen · 2011-10-10 17:54 · Score: 1

They are NOT police officers, though an obscene number of them are power-crazed wannabe-jackboots who THINK they have authority.
The security guard STOLE the camera. Period.
Yet from the summary:

He also said that a police officer claimed, 'he was within in his rights to confiscate the mobile phone on which the photos were taken.
I haven't RTFA, but the summary seems to indicate the phone wasn't taken, and the threat was made by the police, not the security guard.
Re:Not dubious at all by richlv · 2011-10-10 20:26 · Score: 1

A security guard has the right to detain you and call police to have you arrested.
i seem to recall that pretty much every member of the public has this right :)

--
Rich
Re:Not dubious at all by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 05:13 · Score: 0

every member of the public has this right
In Canada, the property owner (or his duly authorized agent, i.e. security guard) can detain someone for property crime (trespass, shoplifting) at the time of the crime (not later), but a member of the general public cannot (because trespass and petty theft are not indictable offences). E.G., if a store guard sees someone shoplift, the guard can detain that someone until the police arrive; whereas if you are shopping in the store and see someone shoplift, you have no right to detain that person, you can only tell an employee, or call the police yourself.
In Canada, you have the right to be in a public space, such as a shopping mall, regardless of whether it is private property. If the owner (or duly ...) of the private property asks you to leave and you refuse to do so, then you are trespassing, not before.

Not new. by antdude · 2011-10-10 17:11 · Score: 2

http://www.google.com/search?q=take+pictures+security+public , and it will get worse. :(

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).

Not exactly by unassimilatible · 2011-10-10 17:11 · Score: 1

As do I, but keep in mind there are exceptions such as membership only stores like Sam's Club and Costco where you sign a contract stating that you will do just that.

Yes, but the contract doesn't say, "and if I don't show my receipt, you may detain me by force." And I'm about 99% certain Costco wouldn't be dumb enough to try. Yes, you'd be in breach of the agreement, but how would the person at the door even know who you are without seeing your membership card, which you wouldn't show on the way out either?

And yes, Fry's and the like can kiss my ass when they ask for a receipt. One time at Fry's, I went straight from the register to the bathroom to pee. Some associate came in and said, "sir, there's no merchandise allowed in the restroom. I informed him I didn't have any merchandise, I only had my personal property (since it was all paid for). He said it's their policy. I said I don't work for Fry's, so I don't follow their policies after my business with them is completed. He said, "my boss said..." I said to go get your boss and tell him what I said and he can come in here and try to tell me I can't take a leak with my stuff if he wants to try that. He walked away, sorry he didn't finish college...

--
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you

Re:Not exactly by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 17:36 · Score: 0

He walked away, sorry he didn't finish college...
You know what? I moderated two of your comments +1. But this one, almost flippant, remark makes me wish I didn't. Why? Because it portrays you as an arrogant piece of shit. Now, I could unclick the "post anonymously" checkbox and retract my moderations, but I can't be bothered. Additionally, I still think your comments that I moderated insightful or informative or worthwhile, but my opinion towards you has changed. I now see you as an arrogant, self-centered, egotistical fuckwit with probably no more insight than anyone with common sense.

It has been reversed. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 17:20 · Score: 5, Informative

Seems the mall came to their senses.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15251848

Re:It has been reversed. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 20:32 · Score: 0

Thank you for the actual useful information in a comment!

Re:fp by mug+funky · 2011-10-10 17:21 · Score: 1

fpfail

My experience by mercurywoodrose · 2011-10-10 17:21 · Score: 0

Taking photos to post on Wikimedia Commons, i was stopped by a security guard while photographing the entrance to an indoor mall from the private parking lot outside it. the moment he pulled up, i figured it out: private property, photographing elements of that property that can qualify as elements of commerce. I apologized and took no more photos. the guard did not confiscate my camera, or even ask me to delete any photos i took (very civilized of him). However, its a gray area. Suspicious behavior could reasonably be seen as taking multiple photos of private property from that property. taking a photo of your child, even on a playset there, is so obviously not suspicious or inappropriate, its worth lawyering up over. its all about social mores and reasonable right to privacy, along with the semi-public semi-private status of malls and stores. stores cannot absolutely bar anyone they want without some indication of a reason that doesnt violate civil rights laws. I can bar anyone (aside from police with warrants or emergency personnel) i want from entering my home for any reason, without stating the reason. companies are given certain privileges to operate on behalf of the public, and are also given certain protections in the deal. its a give and take. lots of qualifiers. thats why he have judges, and not computers, figuring out the law. and why police should remember their role as defenders of social values. why not simply educate the citizen of the rules regarding photography, and suggest that if he wants to photograph his child in front of a store display, talk with the store manager? they may like the idea. winners all around.

--
You hear about the person who didn't rely on anecdotal evidence to support his belief system?

Theft by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 17:33 · Score: 0

Rent-a-cops have no right to take someones private property. When you go to someones house, they have no right to take your wallet because its on private property. The rent-a-cop has *no* right to 'sieze' anything. Both the rent-a-cop *and* the mall *must* be charged with theft.

Next Movie: The Mall by Taco+Cowboy · 2011-10-10 17:40 · Score: 1

They had movie titles like "The Firm", "The Executioner" and before you know it, they will have "The Mall, The Movie", coming to a theatre near you.

Soon.

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:Next Movie: The Mall by mwvdlee · 2011-10-10 18:28 · Score: 0

They had movie titles like "The Firm", "The Executioner" and before you know it, they will have "The Mall, The Movie", coming to a theatre near you.
Soon.
I'm just trying to read this with a deep, dark voice and an explosion at the end.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Re:Next Movie: The Mall by GigaplexNZ · 2011-10-10 18:51 · Score: 1

They already have "Mall Cop"
Re:Next Movie: The Mall by AliasMarlowe · 2011-10-10 20:06 · Score: 1

They had movie titles like "The Firm", "The Executioner" and before you know it, they will have "The Mall, The Movie", coming to a theatre near you.
And the theater will be in a mall...

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Re:Next Movie: The Mall by Calydor · 2011-10-10 23:02 · Score: 2

If photography is now illegal in malls, how are they gonna film this movie?
Yeah, you didn't think of that, did you?

--
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Re:Next Movie: The Mall by Almandine · 2011-10-11 03:12 · Score: 1

I was just there this week with all the map cops on Segways. Seems perfectly fine to take photos there.

In other news.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 17:44 · Score: 0

Here in the Netherlands the police are starting a campaign 'pak de overvaller, pak je mobiel' which translates 'get the robber, get your mobile' to urge people to grab there mobile phone to take a photo of any robber/robbing they see...

Waitrose Fruit Photo by hughbar · 2011-10-10 17:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Extract from one of my recent blog entries

At the grapefruits, I chance upon some Chinese tourists who are taking pictures of the fruit and conversing. I try some very rusty mandarin, they laugh delightedly and they don't slap me [easily possible because tone-error changes question-mark into 'horse', for example].

Immediately arrives lady security guard, telling them that they are not allowed to take any pictures of fruit. I remonstrate and ask for her name. She replies [she has an east european accent and perhaps yearns for the good old days, although she is a youngish woman] that she is 'security' and cannot give me a name, obviously not, I think. So I ask for the name of her boss who is 'on holiday'. I ask where he works and she says that he is 'on holiday', not understanding that I want to know whether he is head-office or wharf. Finally I go away with a name, though she might have lied for 'security purposes'.

I used to admire and give a lot of custom to Waitrose, because of the partnership structure etc. but now, after this, it's demonstrating that it's just another sleazebag corporation with its best years behind it. I have a cooperative card now, perhaps we'll go there for grapefruit photography and purchase from henceforth, forward.

--
On y va, qui mal y pense!

Re:Waitrose Fruit Photo by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 23:39 · Score: 0

Since it was in a supermarket there would have been a manager in charge of the store, who most likely would have been able to tell the security guard what to do, you should have asked to speak to whichever manager was in charge of the store at the time, it may be that the security guard wasn't following policy but just doing what she though appropriate.

The damage is done by Taco+Cowboy · 2011-10-10 17:46 · Score: 1

No amount of apology will make me visiting that piece of shitty mall

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

You should have insisted back by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 17:49 · Score: 0

I used to go to the Costco pharmacy as a non Costco member, and they still insisted on checking my bag, when it was obvious I just had my prescription. Yea, I'm gonna fit a twelve pack of shampoo in my purse... I eventually moved to a new pharmacy.

And said, "fuck you."

Uh huh by unassimilatible · 2011-10-10 17:53 · Score: 1

Another Internet tough guy, typing things he'd never say to someone's face.

Community college in my state is $27 a unit. Those too lazy to take advantage of it, or develop some other skill than being surly and unhelpful, as Fry's associates tend to be, can work for minimum wage and suck it. If that's elitist, so be it. The world doesn't owe anyone a living.

--
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you

Re:Uh huh by gknoy · 2011-10-10 18:46 · Score: 2

On the other hand, compassion is free, and compassionate people realize that some sales drones might be there due to hard times, and might be treating you in the sales-drone-fashion that they do because they fear their managers more than they fear your opinion of them.
Re:Uh huh by Psychotria · 2011-10-10 18:53 · Score: 1

Those too lazy to take advantage of it, or develop some other skill than being surly and unhelpful, as Fry's associates tend to be, can work for minimum wage and suck it. If that's elitist, so be it. The world doesn't owe anyone a living.
Why do you think they owe it to you to be helpful?
Re:Uh huh by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-10-10 21:30 · Score: 1

Why do you think they owe it to you to be helpful?
They don't owe it to him, they owe it to their employer, because that's their job. Being helpful sells things, which is why their employer has them employed in the first place.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Uh huh by unassimilatible · 2011-10-11 05:52 · Score: 1

Why do you think they owe it to you to be helpful?
Well they are paid to do so. But I just laugh at their bad attitude, since I invariably know more about the product I am looking at than they do. But for the average Joe Six-Pack walking in there, they are horrible and make Best Buy look customer-friendly.

--
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you

This sort of BS goes on all the time. by deodiaus2 · 2011-10-10 17:56 · Score: 1

I was in NYC when I wanted to take a picture of the buildings around Wall Street. I was approached by a rent a cop who informed me that that was illegal. Well, this is BS. First, I see thousands of pictures of NYC taken and posted every day by professionals, so if I were in scouting for targets, I think I would have the camera in my backpack. Shit like this goes on all the time. Worse, most lawyers won't even bother to help you on issues like this. I guess it makes them look bad when they try to grease the skids for high paying clients.

Re:TFA: Never states Security Guard could take Cam by SpiralSpirit · 2011-10-10 18:00 · Score: 2

The actual law says that to confiscate his camera they'd have to arrest him for taking pictures likely to be used in a terrorist attack. I imagine the court case that followed, and then the lawsuit, would be an interesting gong show.

Take my eyes out? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 18:00 · Score: 0

Goodness forbid I shall remember what user. Maybe that's illegal too because the people who were once part of my vision are now on my brain. Shall I blindfold and hire a working dog (love them btw)? Better yet, i'll shop online. When there's no mall, let's see how they like it.

Re:This is fairly common, it's not really news-wor by justforgetme · 2011-10-10 18:01 · Score: 1

It still is absurd to ban something that is non invasive and non destructive. IDC about paparazzi type photo journalism but banning persons from photographing their peers is like trying to put copyright on photons. And in all legislatures there is a law/amendment/clarification that every law described in it has to be enforced in a sane manner.

--
-- no sig today

Never shop there again... by Mattsson · 2011-10-10 18:02 · Score: 1

Never shop there again, try go get everyone you know, work with or have other connections with to stop shopping there.
If lots of people do that, this is a self-solving problem.
A company in a non-monopoly environment and whose business it is to sell stuff can not afford to have customer-hostile policies, unless the customers allow it.

It probably works better if you also make sure that the management of the place knows what you are doing and why... Of course, in the UK you probably can get sued for defamation if you do this... =/
A statement being true isn't always protection against this, since the accused have the burden of proving his/her statement to be true rather than the accuser having to prove that it's not.

--
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)

Re:Never shop there again... by poofmeisterp · 2011-10-18 06:53 · Score: 1

If lots of people do that, this is a self-solving problem.
...and there's the problem. If. :(

extreme mall security by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 18:04 · Score: 1

This bloke takes his rights with fake cops a step further in the UK.
http://www.youtube.com/user/cveitch#p/a/u/0nuYSVCW9ILs
Great stuff! I like to have them follow me around for ages when I refuse to open my bag here in Australia.
Most people don't realise that there is a difference between policy and the law.

Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by seandiggity · 2011-10-10 18:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

In a mall in the U.S., I was taking a picture of a "Wet Floor" sign I found funny because the stickman on it looked like he was falling the same way I did when I broke my leg. I was still on crutches recovering from that injury, and some guy from a cell phone vendor booth had the nerve to tell me that I couldn't take pictures in the mall because "believe it or not it's private property". But he didn't try to take my phone, and I just crutched away.

About a month later, my girlfriend was harrassed in a Canadian sandwich shop for taking pictures of wall art she thought was cute. An employee had the audacity to harrass her (a paying customer, no less), block the exit, and intimidate her into deleting the photos from her phone in front of him. He spouted some nonsense about "corporate espionage". After some very loud complaints by me, the owner of the sandwich chain apologized profusely, disciplined the employee (I think he's actually gone now), and mailed us a gift certificate.

So, needless to say I've done some reading up on this...from what I can tell, the law does actually seem to be on the side of the fascists because civil liberties have eroded so badly. It's difficult to tell if the situation is worse in the U.S. or Canada, but in both countries there are a number of ways in which you can be legally harrassed for taking photos inside a place of business. However, I don't believe anyone but an actual policeman, federal agent, etc. (not a rent-a-cop or employee) can legally confiscate your property (your phone) or look through it.

This "OMG no photos" mindset is not only the product of police-state paranoia, it's fed by the ideologues of intellectual property. The irony is that businesses should be embracing the free advertising...many of these photos will end up on the Web in some form, likely mentioning the location, maybe even tagged with that info and the name of the store, products, and other data-mining fodder. Not to mention the fact that cellphone cameras are an everyday reality now, and bothering anyone who uses them in a store makes for horrible PR and customer service in a very precarious sales economy.

--
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms

Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by bky1701 · 2011-10-10 18:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Think it is bad for taking photos? Try living barefoot. Then you'll see just how pervasive corporate control really is over your life.

--
Great Intellect...
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 18:44 · Score: 0

This "OMG no photos" mindset is not only the product of police-state paranoia, it's fed by the ideologues of intellectual property
- How true. I feel it is also because we have said that pictures and personal information are worth money, even when not collected professionally.
Free advertising for the mall and surrounding stalls - "any news is good news" might be their stance? They have way more publicity now than if they had done the right thing...
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by DerekLyons · 2011-10-10 18:52 · Score: 1

So, needless to say I've done some reading up on this...from what I can tell, the law does actually seem to be on the side of the fascists because civil liberties have eroded so badly. It's difficult to tell if the situation is worse in the U.S. or Canada, but in both countries there are a number of ways in which you can be legally harrassed for taking photos inside a place of business.
Your rights while on someone else's property have always been limited (if nothing else by good manners). There's no "fascism"[1] or "erosion" here, just a strong and mistaken sense of self-entitlement on your part. If you'd actually read (and comprehended) the applicable law as you claim to have, you'd find that the US actually has among the most liberal laws in the world protecting photographers rights.

[1] A term you demonstrably have no understanding of the meaning of.
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by afabbro · 2011-10-10 18:59 · Score: 1

So, needless to say I've done some reading up on this...from what I can tell, the law does actually seem to be on the side of the fascists because civil liberties have eroded so badly.
What does that mean? The law is not old iron in the rain - it doesn't rust or "erode". So what exactly was the law and how has it changed?

--
Advice: on VPS providers
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by gknoy · 2011-10-10 19:00 · Score: 1

How is it even safe to live barefoot? I wouldn't want to touch many of the surfaces I encounter in every day life with a bare foot.
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by afabbro · 2011-10-10 19:00 · Score: 1

Think it is bad for taking photos? Try living barefoot.
Good Lord, why? Footgear was one of mankind's earliest and best inventions.

--
Advice: on VPS providers
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 20:05 · Score: 0

I have been on the other side of this (at a casino) and it is not about being a fascist, it is just to protect others privacy,at least when i did it
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 20:27 · Score: 0

I have worked for a major retailer and I can tell you exactly why companies (whether they be the stores or the malls) don't want you taking photos on their property: liability.

Let's say you're a multi-billion dollar company, and some guy comes into one of your hundreds of locations, puts something on the floor, takes a picture of it, then pretends to trip over it. He has his buddy take a picture of him "tripping" over it and a picture of him on the ground in pain.

Alternatively, let's say some kid is walking down the aisle knocking everything off the shelf for fun (this happens every day). Someone who has no ill-intent at all takes a photo of a cool product in the store, but in the background you see things all over the floor. An employee picks it all up right away and puts it back on the shelf, and the photo goes up online in some blog. Then someone finds that photo online and points to it as "evidence" of a dangerous culture of negligence at the stores.

These companies will generally bend over backwards to take care of people who are hurt on their property -- it's in their best interest for many reasons. They're not trying to scam anyone by prohibiting photos. They're trying to protect themselves.

It's the same reason they don't have cameras anywhere they don't absolutely need them. The same reason the Human Resources department in every company would rather talk to you on the phone than trade emails. They're afraid of someone who has no liability creating documented liability for them.
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by richlv · 2011-10-10 21:24 · Score: 1

Not to mention the fact that cellphone cameras are an everyday reality now, and bothering anyone who uses them in a store makes for horrible PR and customer service in a very precarious sales economy.
that. whenever i'm on a "NO PHOTO !!!K!J@" tour somewhere, usually ~ half of the people do take photos sneakily. you can take photos nearly with any object today :)
and i'm waiting for the day when those devices that record everything around you will be much cheaper (for now mostly used in research regading memory problems, i believe). not only there will be people who will have a medical need to wear them, general population soon will have easy access to small enough cameras (available, but expensive) so that taking photos won't be even visible...

--
Rich
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by ArsenneLupin · 2011-10-10 21:34 · Score: 1

An employee had the audacity to harrass her (a paying customer, no less), block the exit, and intimidate her into deleting the photos from her phone in front of him.
Next time, look around, especially at the ceiling, near the corners, spot the security cameras, demand to see the footage about you, and demand that they erase it in front of you. If they refuse, walk away with your phone, and photos still undeleted.
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 00:55 · Score: 0

block the exit, and intimidate her into deleting the photos from her phone in front of him
If you are physically blocked from exiting, that is illegal detainment and is a felony.
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 01:24 · Score: 0

Wouldn't keeping her in a location without her permission and without placing her under arrest constitute an attempt at kidnapping? (It probably doesn't, but you could probably scare the person that attempts to keep a person from leaving.)
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by SuiteSisterMary · 2011-10-11 01:27 · Score: 1

Next time, look around, especially at the ceiling, near the corners, spot the security cameras, demand to see the footage about you, and demand that they erase it in front of you. If they refuse, walk away with your phone, and photos still undeleted.
Or, say 'no.' Ask to see the manager. Then use the cell phone to dial 911 and tell them you're being held against your will.

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by ArsenneLupin · 2011-10-11 01:43 · Score: 1

Or, say 'no.' Ask to see the manager. Then use the cell phone to dial 911 and tell them you're being held against your will.
That's if you want to make a stand and have time to waste...
If you just want to keep your photo and peacefully go on with your afternoon, the non-confrontional (but sneaky) approach works best.
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by SuiteSisterMary · 2011-10-11 01:50 · Score: 1

Why wouldn't you want to make a stand? Besides, at that point, a simple 'no' and walk out the door works. It's very unlikely they'll physically stop you. This is, after all, Canada.

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by seandiggity · 2011-10-11 03:11 · Score: 1

Your rights while on someone else's property have always been limited (if nothing else by good manners). There's no "fascism"[1] or "erosion" here, just a strong and mistaken sense of self-entitlement on your part.
In the U.S., we used to have a concept of public spaces, "the commons", something we inherited from the British, going back all the way to the Magna Carta. Our public spaces were fast disappearing before I was born, and they continue to be bought and sold by private interests. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'd like to think I have essential rights that don't go away as soon as I step out of my house or off of the sidewalk into the vast sprawl of private property all around me.

The "my property, my rules" rationale should apply in some cases, and I would never say that people should do whatever they want on private property. But that's true on public property as well. There are some gray areas but it's generally not difficult to see where the basic rights of an individual are being infringed, or where heavy-handed enforcement of a law is unecessary. I usually just think about how I would like to be treated as a person. I know, that sounds insane.

We should be mindful that property rights have always been used to justify oppression. During Jim Crow, "my property, my rules" applied to private property and "our property, our rules" applied to public property, and I hope I don't have to explain why those were bad arguments. Private property still creates a shield for bigotry to hide behind, only it's usually more hidden, many times to those who create or enforce the rules. Take a good look at the dress codes in clubs and bars that are designed to keep out the "urban" element. People internalize bigotry and are frequently unaware of it completely, which is why personal introspection is a virtue.

As far as good manners go, who's the one being rude in the scenarios I wrote about?

If you'd actually read (and comprehended) the applicable law as you claim to have, you'd find that the US actually has among the most liberal laws in the world protecting photographers rights.
If you've actually experienced bullying by thugs in uniform, you might think differently. There is no personification of "the law" that magically appears in real-world altercations and protects the rights you have on paper. There are a number of problems you seem to ignore, and I can think of a few off the top of my head:

1. Employees of private interests, including security guards, frequently overstep their bounds and harrass individuals because of a false sense of righteousness, a misunderstanding of company policy, an understanding of company policies that are illegal or not tested in court, a macho attitude, because they are having a bad day, or because they are bored. In my first story, I think the person bothering me was probably bored. In the second, I think there was a macho attitude along with a misunderstanding of company policy.

2. The problem with police officers and other designated enforcers of the law is that they all-too-frequently *are* the law. Pick up your local paper, there's probably coverage of a police brutality or corruption case in there.

3. Laws passed in the past decade or so *have* given police all kinds of leverage when it comes to search and seizure, especially where electronic devices are concerned. The post-9/11 hysteria set in motion a series of very serious infringements on our rights that continues to this day. You read /. don't you?

4. It's not yet clear how courts should respond to new technologies. The law moves slower than the very rapid technological changes around us and, where the law moves quickly, it is usually technophobic. You read /. don't you?

5. In many cases, older laws are expanded to cover new technologies in ways that make no sense given the nature of those technologies. These laws are frequently expl

--
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by seandiggity · 2011-10-11 03:21 · Score: 1

So, needless to say I've done some reading up on this...from what I can tell, the law does actually seem to be on the side of the fascists because civil liberties have eroded so badly.
What does that mean? The law is not old iron in the rain - it doesn't rust or "erode". So what exactly was the law and how has it changed?
If you read my quote, you'll see I'm talking about the protection of civil liberties, which I can assure you has eroded and continues to erode. In fact, the erosion is so bad that it's difficult to summarize for you, as you seem to be asking. See my comment #37679574 above and you may understand my mindset better.

--
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by Cro+Magnon · 2011-10-11 06:11 · Score: 1

And I wouldn't want to touch a surface that you've touched with a bare foot.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by cOldhandle · 2011-10-11 07:41 · Score: 1

While both of the situations you describe sound fairly innocuous, I personally think a no-photo policy is more in line with preserving civil liberties, and I'm surprised I seem to be in the minority. Imagine being photographed around shops, and having those photos then submitted to random corporate entities like Facebook and Flickr. With the advances in facial recognition software and increasing government/corporate control, pretty soon your privacy and freedom is a distant memory, and everything you buy and everywhere you go is public knowledge. There are even disgusting sites like http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ dedicated to trying to publically humiliate people who have non-consensual photographs taken of them in supermarkets. In these circumstances, I think it's essential that stores have no-photograph policies (perhaps permission/supervision could be granted by staff on a case-by-case basis?)
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by seandiggity · 2011-10-11 08:21 · Score: 1

While both of the situations you describe sound fairly innocuous, I personally think a no-photo policy is more in line with preserving civil liberties, and I'm surprised I seem to be in the minority. Imagine being photographed around shops, and having those photos then submitted to random corporate entities like Facebook and Flickr. With the advances in facial recognition software and increasing government/corporate control, pretty soon your privacy and freedom is a distant memory, and everything you buy and everywhere you go is public knowledge. There are even disgusting sites like http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ dedicated to trying to publically humiliate people who have non-consensual photographs taken of them in supermarkets. In these circumstances, I think it's essential that stores have no-photograph policies (perhaps permission/supervision could be granted by staff on a case-by-case basis?)
While I am very aware of the dangers you're talking about, I think policies against photography are entirely unrealistic at this point. The real problem you're talking about is twofold:

1. Cultural attitudes toward the Internet and privacy (or lack thereof). It's gotten to the point where the upcoming generation has no expectation of privacy, doesn't think surveillance is a big deal, and doesn't even care enough to take basic precautions for the sake of their own privacy (let alone that of others). It's a problem, but what will likely happen is that society-at-large will alter its cultural attitudes to adjust for the change. Otherwise, no one would get past a job interview in the future. This is related to...

2. The corporate surveillance cloud. I could go on and on about this, but you seem to be well aware of the dangers. I'll just add that corporations are fostering an attitude of recklessness with their "gimmegimmegimme data" policies.

What you're talking about with the Wal-mart example has always been possible since the days of the early Internet (and really, before)...it's just that now everyone has network-aware cameras in their pockets. We knew this was coming; everyone's been talking about the eventual convergence of camera, Internet, games, phone since at least the late 90s. Predictably, we're handling it badly. But, like so many other things in the corrupt world we live in, you just learn to defend yourself the best you can and hope to educate yourself and others about the dangers, fighting battles where you're able.

If we're truly worried about privacy from camera survelliance, the first step would be talking about the millions (billions?) of cameras that surround us as we go on with our daily lives, not the teenager who might take a photo of us to get a laugh. The corporate/government surveillance machine has been more-or-less fragmented up to this point, but eventually there will be a convergence of all that data too. Who knows what "virtual me" will emerge on their combined servers.

--
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-10-11 09:30 · Score: 1

I used to do this. I found a nifty little hack around a lot of the corporate rules and some of the laws associated with having shoes in public places. Many of the rules and laws are written in such a way that makes it necessary for a person to have shoes, "on," but neglect to say anything about wearing them on their feet. I always walked around with a cheap pair of sandals clipped to my hip and the stores eventually figured out that I wasn't really violating any of their rules. :)

Sometimes being pedantic is fun.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by yarbo · 2011-10-11 10:44 · Score: 1

Where do you live? I live in Oakland and spend a lot of time in SF and it's pretty easy going. I take the bus and the BART and go to restaurants and 9/10 or so, it's fine. I'm barefoot at work now, and no one cares. I worked the census barefoot. I get more crap from my friends than from businesses.
When I was in Chicago, everyone seemed to care though.
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by bky1701 · 2011-10-11 10:44 · Score: 1

It is much safer than "common wisdom" has it, which if you did some research, you would know. That said, even if it weren't, how it is your business? Or do only certain personal freedoms matter?

--
Great Intellect...
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by bky1701 · 2011-10-11 10:45 · Score: 1

Because it is none of your, or the store/restaurant's business. Why do people need to justify themselves to you?

--
Great Intellect...
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by bky1701 · 2011-10-11 10:49 · Score: 1

It does vary, but outside a few small areas (college towns have to be fairly open in general), it is hard going. I think that most people don't even realize how much corporations dictate their lives. I certainly didn't until I tried to go barefoot here in Raleigh NC. Now I know, and it's a bit scary, honestly.

--
Great Intellect...
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by bky1701 · 2011-10-11 10:57 · Score: 1

You touch floors a lot? I would think that someone being barefoot would be the least of your concern were you doing that.

--
Great Intellect...
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by Osgeld · 2011-10-11 10:58 · Score: 1

Try living barefoot. Then you'll see just how fast a dirty hippy shits out a lawyer when they get a minor abrasion on their foot
Re:Recent experiences in the U.S. and Canada by bky1701 · 2011-10-11 11:00 · Score: 1

Any cases of this actually happening? Even one? Hmm?

Just as an FYI, I'm not a hippy, either. Atheist-Engineer-Technocrat-Militant. Maybe the anti-hippy...

--
Great Intellect...

Texas Improper Photography Law by Pooua · 2011-10-10 18:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Texas has what is known as an "Improper Photography" law. Relax, those of you who couldn't take a good picture to save your life. This law is aimed squarely at people whose photography offends other people, generally the people who shoot photos of complete strangers. The message seems to be that we don't tolerate street photographers in Texas. Now, that isn't how the law is sold to the public. This is supposed to be an anti-unwitting porn star law. It was born of the need to stop people from photographing strangers in locker rooms, dressing rooms and other places where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the law goes beyond that. If you stand at a children's football game and shoot photos of the children, you stand a good chance of an angry confrontation, followed by police investigation. One professional photographer was arrested because people thought he was shooting too many photos of women at a street festival (his case was dismissed). IOW, the people who are being arrested under this law aren't in private places; they are out in public. Most of those arrested people who are now reported in the press do seem seriously sketchy, but nothing in the law would discourage someone from pressing charges against any photographer who shoots photos of several strangers in public.

In theory, the Supreme Court says that I have the Constitutional right to shoot videos of anyone who is in a public place. In practice, several Texans have informed me that if they see me shooting photos of anyone's children, they will inflict on me significant bodily harm. This law is part of their justification that they are in their legal rights to do so.

--
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)

Re:Texas Improper Photography Law by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 19:57 · Score: 0

I guess Texans think it is ok to go threatening people with serious bodily harm if they do something that is a constitutional right. In my country it would be ok to get them fined or jailed for threatening me like that and that's how I like it to be. You stay there and I won't come there.
Re:Texas Improper Photography Law by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 20:33 · Score: 0

This is interesting though. I'm not sure I'd be happy if you followed me and my family on the street, all the while taking pictures of my kids. You could argue that we are in a public place with no expectation of privacy, but I would still freak out. I also thought it is "required" for photographers to ask for a "model release" if they take recognizable pictures of people.
You could say it's no big deal if some random photographer keeps an album of pictures of my kids. However, what with automated facial recognition happening after that random photographer uploads all these pictures to his Facebook, it definitely crosses the line.
You could extend this to Google PeopleView cars driving around photographing everyone and auto-tagging them, so you can search for a given person and plot out his whereabouts for the last few months on a map.
Re:Texas Improper Photography Law by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 22:07 · Score: 0

I find new reasons to hate this country and the government everyday...
Re:Texas Improper Photography Law by Kjella · 2011-10-10 22:21 · Score: 2

I also thought it is "required" for photographers to ask for a "model release" if they take recognizable pictures of people.
Not for news reporting, typically only for illustration or advertising, so it'd be fully legal to run a news article with "Here's happy people at the $foo festival in $bar, see our picture slideshow". And a hobby photographer doesn't need a model release unless he intends to publish the image in a recognizable form, for example a painter may wish to photograph a scene and paint it later with altered faces. Absolutely no signatures are required to take the photo.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Texas Improper Photography Law by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 23:33 · Score: 0

Very interesting and strange. How do professional photographers conduct their work in Texas I wonder? What happens when tourists wander around snapping pictures?
Re:Texas Improper Photography Law by wideBlueSkies · 2011-10-11 03:09 · Score: 1

Sure because you can do so much harm with a couple of photos of fully clothed children playing sports... What a bunch of perv's those camera guys are... with their lenses and their creativity. It's just weird, to plain thinking folk. Yeah, weird. All that.. thinking...

--
Huh?
Re:Texas Improper Photography Law by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 03:59 · Score: 0

> In practice, several Texans have informed me that if they see me shooting photos of anyone's children, they will inflict on me significant bodily harm. This law is part of their justification that they are in their legal rights to do so.
That's why you need to take photographs inconspicuously and from a safe location, like the protective walls of a plain white cargo van, so as to not draw attention to yourself.
Re:Texas Improper Photography Law by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 05:06 · Score: 0

I guess Texans think it is ok to go threatening people with serious bodily harm if they do something that is a constitutional right. In my country it would be ok to get them fined or jailed for threatening me like that and that's how I like it to be. You stay there and I won't come there.
That is because most Texans are idiot redneck assholes. (with exception to most Texan slashdotters such as GP) It is totally ok for someone in Texas to wave a gun in someone's face and threaten them with physical harm. But don't point your camera in my direction!
I wonder if a photobomber can have a photographer arrested there?
Idiots.
Re:Texas Improper Photography Law by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 05:15 · Score: 0

As a fellow Texas who also enjoys photography:
My pistol goes with me everywhere. ( CCW 4tw ) Not only because I'm usually toting around several thousand dollars in camera body and lens, ( not fun to do that in some areas ) but also for the folks who decide to take their objections or interest in my gear to a physical level.
Sad when I can take a licensed firearm into the mall, but not a camera :| Guess we'll be getting a license to carry cameras next.
Re:Texas Improper Photography Law by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 05:37 · Score: 0

The only correct reply is that "I am a citizen of Texas and as such have a right to a concealed carry permit. You lay a hand on me and a photograph of a child will be the least of your damn worries, IMMEDIATELY."
Re:Texas Improper Photography Law by toriver · 2011-10-11 07:56 · Score: 1

I also thought it is "required" for photographers to ask for a "model release" if they take recognizable pictures of people.
Not if the pictures are for personal use (e.g. trying out techniques etc.) For commercial use, there is such a clause yes, so that your visage will not adorn a vasectomy clinic ad for instance.
Re:Texas Improper Photography Law by Walter+Carver · 2011-10-14 09:30 · Score: 1

You do photography? Street photography? Can we have a link and see picture you took?

Re:TFA: Never states Security Guard could take Cam by jbov · 2011-10-10 18:11 · Score: 1

Agreed. Just clarifying the article, since many posters confused the person supposedly within rights to confiscate the camera, according to TFA.

UK Law by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 18:12 · Score: 0

In the UK if you take a photograph on private property such as a shopping mall and said mall has a rule saying no photos then you are committing an offense of trespass, they can then ask you to leave, it's not a criminal offense so the police would be wrong to get involved but you can be sued for any damage you may cause.

On public property there are a whole host of rules restricting the taking of photographs, the police can perform a stop and search, if you argue with them or if they believe you were acting suspiciously they can detain you for up to 48 hours without charge.

Not enough violence in your blood by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 18:17 · Score: 0

People have to fight for their right. With their bare hands. The London riots have shown us the value of anger. All this bullshit about "safe and enjoyable enviroment" must end someday - its only for the domination of the upper class.

Everything is OK by sortadan · 2011-10-10 18:17 · Score: 3, Funny

4:45 :-)

Can you reverse the tables? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 18:19 · Score: 0

I think at that point it ought to be legal to demand the officer's phone for inspection - a sort of citizens arrest. You never know, he may have been taking pictures himself. I'd be very suspicious if I were you..

On a more serious note, could I suggest that you first of all stay calm? Nothing worries these guys more as someone who isn't impressed, because it suggests that they themselves are stepping in something smelly. Discomfort is good..

section 44 of the terrorism act may have been used by dyshexic · 2011-10-10 18:20 · Score: 1

for the police officer to take his camera/phone away. the police officer presumably thought he had rights under section 44 of the UK terrorism Act but this has been declared illegal by the European court of human rights, the government is appealing this but its likely to lose. The most sensible thing is to make a direct complaint to the Police complaints authority.

Now having said that the space where the photograph was taken specifically forbade the man from using any form of camera, now if that place was considered public as in their was pubic right of way then it is illegal restrict photography but it is legal if it is on private property

this area of law is complex and one of the best place to get detailed information is http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2 which supplies a downloadable pdf with the relevant sections of law

Private property by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 18:21 · Score: 0

As it's private property you need the permission of the owner to take photos. They say no then that's tough. In a public place in the UK you can take as many photos as you want. You need to respect the wishes of the property owner in the UK.

However I do think it's all gotten a bit silly these day.

psychiatric illness by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 18:24 · Score: 0

Ironically, Britain is said to have more state-operated cameras than anywhere else on Earth.

Where's the irony? Or the relevance for that matter?!

This case concerns conditions of entry set to private property, by the resident owner or lease holding corporation. The only tangential relationship this would seem to have to the state would be the legislation passed in the nineteenth century and amended thereafter, which permitted incorporation by registration.

State-operated cameras? The price of tea in China? The state controlling the use of cameras by ordinary citizens? WTF?!

Re:psychiatric illness by Nursie · 2011-10-10 18:46 · Score: 1

I'm not sure there's any Irony either, but you may want to RTFA, in which a police officer threatens to remove the camera under (blatant misuse of) the provisions of anti-terrorist legislation.

Braehead Photography Policy Change by Gravis+Zero · 2011-10-10 18:25 · Score: 1

as it turns out, when people find out you are evil, they dont like it and then you end up eating crow because you fear them.

Photography Policy Change

We have listened to the very public debate surrounding our photography policy and as a result, with immediate effect, are changing the policy to allow family and friends to take photos in the mall.

We will publicise this more clearly in the mall and on our website, and will reserve the right to challenge suspicious behaviour for the safety and enjoyment of our shoppers.

We wish to apologise to Mr White for the distress we may have caused to him and his family and we will be in direct contact with him to apologise properly.

no need to appologize for getting caught being evil, just go bankrupt instead.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.

Re:Braehead Photography Policy Change by poofmeisterp · 2011-10-18 07:05 · Score: 1

Translation: "When we make a mistake, don't use it to make us look bad. Just make everything we do look GOOD publicly."

This shopping center has CCTV at my house. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 18:28 · Score: 0

I live beside this shopping center(called Braehead). Not only do they have CCTV around and inside the entire center but they have there own CCTV running down the river to the houses here, some of which are equipped with infra-red lights for night time. The problem?

These CCTV cameras have a perfect view into a number of peoples houses.

Not only that but ive had the opportunity to see first hand what some of these security guards are like behind the camera in Xscape (right beside braehead) and one of the things they used the cameras for were to follow women around the center.

To top it off, they even have cctv in the park.

Just in case your wondering, these cctv cameras (and im assuming most are the same) are not government owned or operated there run by braehead and some low paying guard with nothing better to do except follow women around from behind a TV and joystick.

depends on where you are by pbjones · 2011-10-10 18:31 · Score: 1

In many countries, taking photos in public space is OK, but the ower of a building, shopping centre etc has the legal right to prevent you from taking photos within the private space. As for taking the phone/camera, again it depends on where you are, usually it's just erase the film or erase the images, I don't believe that they can take your personal devices away from you. Anyway, it is reasonable to expect that there should be signs around saying 'no photos', or instructions saying that it's condition or entry.

--
There was an unknown error in the submission.

Re:depends on where you are by Jason+Levine · 2011-10-11 01:15 · Score: 1

Actually, in America at least, they can't even order you to delete the photos you've taken. Once you've taken the photo, it is under your copyright. They can order you to stop taking photos or leave, and if you refuse or come back they can have you arrested for trespassing. However, they have no authority to order you to delete photos. I believe even officers can't order you to delete photos. Think about it: If they're claiming you've committed a crime (say, by taking a photo of a bridge with your DSLR), then telling you to delete it is ordering you to destroy evidence. If the photo isn't evidence of a crime, then there's no crime done by taking the photo of it.
As always, The Photographer's Rights is the relevant text to consult: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.

Well it's the only use I have for my camera phone by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 19:24 · Score: 0

Most of my camera phone photos are photos of the price tickets below the products, so that I can compare later. Really.

UK laws by glebovitz · 2011-10-10 19:32 · Score: 1, Troll

I also hear that they have the rights to levy taxes on Tea without representation.

Dutch government promotes takeing pictures by muttoj · 2011-10-10 19:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Dutch government started a new campaign yesterday asking everybody to take pictures in shoppingmalls when ordinary people spot shoplifters, violent behaviour, etc. With this campaign they try to increase the chance of getting the criminals behind bars. When people take pictures of people doing illegal stuff then the court have more evidence to convict the criminals.

Choose your fights by dbIII · 2011-10-10 19:51 · Score: 1

What if you don't have any bars on your teeth? Dental work after a few solid punches is expensive you know and the trifecta of obscence language, assault and resisting arrest is hard to get around unless you are in a position in society to be respected more by a Judge than a policeman with a perfect record.
Yes I know you meant "bared teeth" and it's just a symptom of the education cuts that make you think that the world resembles the writings of Tom Clancy more than Kafka. Civil disobendience only works when you matter a great deal to society or if you have a lot of witnesses that will take your side that matter a great deal to society. Getting beaten up and imprisoned with hardly anybody noticing for some minor issue is not a very intelligent thing to do when more attention can be drawn to the issue by giving in and complaining later. It's an object that is being taken away and not a human being - do you really think it's worth pretending to be a hero and risking injury when things can be resolved in other ways? Did you really even think about it at all or did you just pour on the false bravery of yourself cast in a fiction when in reality you would not act that way?

Re:Choose your fights by KahabutDieDrake · 2011-10-11 08:08 · Score: 1

You sir are a coward and a fool. If you submit to whatever the authority figure says, then in most legal senses, you've given consent. You can't go complaining later because you don't like what you agreed to. My camera, on my person is inviolate. Physically assaulting me to take it away will result in A) Hospital time for someone, B) charges for everyone, and C) my lawyer making a fortune, most likely at the expense of either the City, State, Police force, or the mall corporation. That being said, if I'm informed, while on private property, that I'm not supposed to take pictures, I would be more than happy to stop immediately. If I'm asked to leave, that's no problem either. If they ask to touch my stuff, delete images on my storage device or otherwise invade my space, I WILL defend myself, and I WILL stand up for my rights, even if it means getting beaten up. You cannot sacrifice your rights in fear of the consequences of standing for them... or rather, if you can, you shouldn't have been given any in the first place, because you clearly don't understand why those rights exist, how you were granted them, or why they are important.

Hey, don't let my philosophy ruin your day. I'm sure your owners and masters will be more than happy to see that you are a good little cog and you do what you are told, even if what you are told is rubbish. After all, why cause a fuss? You have important things to do, like go home and watch TV.

flashmob my friends, flashmob by georgesdev · 2011-10-10 20:08 · Score: 1

How about a flashmob with hundreds of us taking pictures with big lousy flashes and everything?
Maybe we'd get nice videos to post on youtube. It could well be the only way to reverse the trend.
(I've been bugged by a security guard about taking pictures in a French shopping center)

Re:flashmob my friends, flashmob by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 05:20 · Score: 0

Would be more of a flash-cube mob then, wouldn't it?

Same thing in Israel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 20:11 · Score: 0

I carry a camera most of the time, and there isn't a place I was told I may not photo inside - shopping centers, train stations, central bus stations, hospitals, book shops, etc. Movie theaters forbid people from entering the lobby with a cameras.

I can understand movie theaters (copyright) and hospitals (privacy), the rest is just madness.

AUSTRALIA: Like a train station in Adelaide's CBD by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 20:16 · Score: 0

A teacher was disappointed to see 4-5 HUGE (tall & very overweight) "transport supervisors" lined-up inside the TransAdelaide (commuter-) train station - located one floor below the Casino - apparently monitoring ticket-checking machines (one must run a tranist-ticket with a ticket through the automatic gate machine to gain entry.

At the time, most of the would-be passengers, passing through these "turnstile" gate machines happened to be very short Asians, eg, students, or possibly cleaners or others working for maybe visiting the CBD.

How disconnected the line of HUGE transit officers seemed, compared to the tiny Asian passengers, so much so, that the teacher - after pointing out the extreme differences in sizes of the "monitors" vs the "monitored" - was moved to take a photograph that might capture that disconnect, eg, for publication either on-line or in local print media, later.

Although NO signs were posted to suggest that there might be anything wrong with capturing photo's for a satirical article, he was noticed (after the flash of his cellphone's camera went off) & promptly reported to Police.

Police have an office across from the row turnstile gate machines, and the teacher was promptly taken there - by Police - with a train of transit officers in tow.

The teacher was "interviewed" by a "British-import copper" (as a friend later referred to him), and the teacher's American accent didn't seem to help his situation, while at the underground Police office.

Surprisingly, at least 3 transit officers (supervisors, NOT transit police) were interjecting questions of their own, as well as commands (eg, that the teacher must show & then delete all of the photographs of the station from his phone's camera).

The transit officers did not wish to be photographed at work,

The Police office wouldn't clear the interview room of non-police, even after several polite but clear requests on the part of the teacher.

But the Police officer had in mind that the train station was a "proscribed area" - where, by default, members of the public had lost their right to photograph, even for publication.

An hour was lost, as well as contact with a friend, who was not interviewed (to the same degree).

Before allowing the teacher to leave, the Police officer agreed to print-out a portion of the law, which had apparently been broken when the teacher's flash-camera took a photo of the silly sight.

When the teacher asked for a copy of the print-out, however, this request was denied. In fact, the police officer made much of not wanting to "educate" the teacher (by handing him the print-out of the law excerpt), who - he suggested - could just as well educate himself on these matters. (!)

PS If it's the norm for a "British import copper" in Adelaide to treat a reasonably dressed (if not in costly garb) teacher this way, I can see why UK police have NOT won the hearts of young people, as they explore their own country...

We can understand Adelaide's desire NOT to post "tourist-unfriendly" signs, eg, "It is FORBIDDEN to photograph in this area, but NOT why it should mistreat a polite teacher, who is caught unawares by such "hidden" laws.

(BTW, the teacher - who must regularly receive a National Police Certificate (in his case, with "nil" charges, convictions, etc.) - was NOT known to Police, except as an informant, occasionally reporting suspicious behaviors over the last decade.)

Shopping Centres are *Private Property* ... by AC-x · 2011-10-10 21:09 · Score: 1

... so they can have whatever rules they like. It's not illegal but security are within their rights to prohibit any activity they feel like.

On a public road however you are allowed to photograph anything you like. 6 photographers did an experiment in central London by photographing important buildings. They were hassled by building security, who then called the police, who then had to tell the building security that the photographers were on public property and thus couldn't be prevented from taking photos.

The appropriate response by ArsenneLupin · 2011-10-10 21:27 · Score: 1

When told that photographing is forbidden, act all astonished, "oh, is it?", apologize, and that's it. Usually they won't press the issue any further, not even asking you to delete the photo.

If they do ask to delete it, pretend to do so (or pretend to not know how). And in any case, you can still recover the photo from the smart card using photorec at home.

Re:The appropriate response by ledow · 2011-10-10 23:14 · Score: 1

You are under absolutely no legal obligation, in the UK, to delete a photo - even on the order of a police officer. This made the news for the last couple of years and the police keep putting out memos to their officers to remind them.
It can be classed as destruction of evidence, actually, and if the police want to confiscate your item on suspicion of the photos being illegal, they have to formally confiscate it, give receipts etc. and then go through long procedures in order to be allowed to delete YOUR property (i.e. photos with your copyright). Otherwise you get situations where they confiscate phones used to take photos of, say, officers roughing up a suspect, and they would be able to delete your "evidence". It's happened before, and the officers were disciplined harshly. They have *no* right to your photographs.
If you're taking photos up girl's skirts, you can be arrested *for that offence*, the phone can be confiscated as part of the arrest / evidence procedures and the photos forcefully deleted only ONCE a crime has been established (but you wouldn't get them back - no more than they'd let you keep child porn, or hand you back your consignment of drugs).
If you're not arrested (and taking an innocent photo, even of other people in a private location, is not illegal - at absolute worst it's a civil matter and one that will be laughed out of court), the very worst they can do is confiscate the phone for "investigation". They would have to give it back. And they would have to leave all photographs on it alone.
That said, there's NO sense in being rude to a police officer at all. But they have no right to delete your photos (or make you delete them) either. If it was illegal, they should be arresting you for taking them. If it's not illegal, they shouldn't be deleting the photos. If it's a civil matter, they aren't involved at all. *Volunteering* to delete the photos (with appropriate disclaimers that you're choosing to do so, only to resolve the dispute, and not because they have any power to make you do so) is probably sensible, but not necessary. And ESPECIALLY because there was NO-ONE else in the photo at all - the security guards should lose their jobs for causing a scene about nothing when they should have been guarding stuff.
But going to the papers is even better - all those shopping centres now allow photo-taking (because it's more hassle than it's worth to ban it) and have probably lost a bit of money because of it (not to mention "wasting police time" for anything in the future that comes up - even if they WANT the police to do something, they now know the police are pretty powerless unless a crime has been committed).

So what were you doing? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 21:31 · Score: 0

You have to love the BS the public relations representatives put out.

"However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures."

If you do not stop family members from taking pictures, then what happened? Because it appears that you stopped a father from taking pictures of his young daughter eating ice cream.

Re:AUSTRALIA: Like a train station in Adelaide's C by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 21:37 · Score: 0

If you look very carefully, around the area they don't want to to snap, you will find abandoned buildings with cult gang graffiti of crocodile headed demon lizards from space who throw molotov cocktails on people to steal their souls while the devil eats other people's faces off. The police can't help, because they don't understand, like in the good old days as a gangster you knew different neighborhoods, but now, now, well now there's no safe place. The idiot media is describing them as a violent gang wearing demon masks, screaming hideous noises, but you know the truth; they are real demons, you should go to the corner market fellow with the freezer in the basement and pick up some heat, He said he had plenty. So a nine round clip, something with a silencer is perfect to keep your neighborhood clear of this pesky threat from bzb the bloody shopping center demon lords.

While this is a fictitious story I made up based on a well loved horror movie (2009), ironically it's not far from truth in US or the UK.

What the fuck is wrong with everyone's common sense?

Ooh, get this. by headkase · 2011-10-10 21:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

My new mall has a policy that it's against the rules to be black in it. So, can my rent-a-cops call real cops and make black people leave and maybe arrest them too? There's a big difference between "policy" and "illegal." When your "policy" becomes "law" then we're back to fiefdoms.

--
Shh.

Re:Ooh, get this. by rwa2 · 2011-10-10 23:36 · Score: 2

Well, malls are pretty much the temples of modern day capitalism. I mean, look at how Vegas is about to take its place up there with the Great Pyramid at Gaza and the Taj Mahal and the Hagia Sophia as one of the wonders of the world... and Vegas is pretty much the biggest mall of them all.
You're walking on hallowed ground! Kowtow low! And respect the powers that have provided you with all that is good upon this mortal earth!
Re:Ooh, get this. by smooth+wombat · 2011-10-11 01:23 · Score: 2

with the Great Pyramid at Gaza

There's a pyramid in Gaza? Better not let the Israeli's know about it. They'll just declare the area around the pyramid a "restricted military zone", kick out the people who have been living there since before there was an Israel, then two years later allow Israelis to start building in the zone.

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Re:Ooh, get this. by rwa2 · 2011-10-11 02:25 · Score: 1

lolGizafail
Re:Ooh, get this. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 09:28 · Score: 0

Better not let the Israeli's know about it.

Better not let his what know about it?
Re:Ooh, get this. by Jstlook · 2011-10-11 10:55 · Score: 1

What are they going to do, arrest themselves too? Perhaps they can only arrest the "wrongdoing" black people. Or even better, the people with cellphones (that have cameras).

--
---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.

The deal we made, the price we pay by Builder · 2011-10-10 22:12 · Score: 1

This is one reason I hate shopping centres and the ever encroaching use of private space to live our public lives.

On a public high street, I can take a picture of whoever and whatever I like from the public highway (pavement). Every shopping centre everywhere in this country has the right to ban me from taking pictures. And yet we live more and more of our lives in these types of private spaces.

The same goes for public parks vs private parks, privately owned estates (e.g. Canary wharf) vs proper public spaces. Even though to a right thinking normal person, there's no difference between these two kinds of spaces, the law treats them differently

Problem Solved by Roosta · 2011-10-10 22:36 · Score: 1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15251848

"Customers will be able to take photographs at several UK shopping centres after an internet campaign." ...

"Capital Shopping Centres, which also owns malls in Cardiff, Manchester, Newcastle, Norwich and Nottingham, said: "CSC can confirm that we will be changing the photography policy at our 11 directly owned centres and that at the other three centres, which we own in partnership with other companies, we will be discussing with our partners the policy change and recommending that it be adopted.""

Sounds like they took the hint.

--
-- Simon Key

So where do you shop after that? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 22:50 · Score: 0

And, since your taxes go to help them put their mall there, why are you there at their privilege?

Their store is open to the public. If the shopowner doesn't like it, they can close down.

Re:So where do you shop after that? by amiga3D · 2011-10-11 05:04 · Score: 1

My taxes paid for their mall? Not likely. Here we have developers that pay for that kind of stuff because they want to profit from it. My taxes probably paid for things like access roads and traffic lights there but that's it. If I found them giving developers money to build a mall they were going to own and make money from I'd go batshit.

Who owns the mall? by damn_registrars · 2011-10-10 23:04 · Score: 2

Usually malls are private property. Owners generally have the right to dictate behavior on their property. You have the right to forbid people from taking pictures when you allow them into your own place of residence if you so choose, mall owners have the same right.

Now, standing across the street on the sidewalk, taking a picture of the mall, would likely be a permissible activity from public property. But the law doesn't usually force property owners to allow people on their property to do any specific activity.

There was an interesting story recently about someone who ran into similar problems at the Mall of America, as well.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

Re:Who owns the mall? by drinkypoo · 2011-10-11 01:03 · Score: 1

It depends entirely on your state. For example, here in Kalifornia, "[S]peech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the centers are privately owned" ... which frankly, is only fair. If you want the public in your space, now, it's a public space. I can't find the recent court decision supporting your right to take photographs in malls though. I wonder why the media would like to bury that?

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Who owns the mall? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 03:24 · Score: 0

"Usually malls are private property. Owners generally have the right to dictate behavior on their property. You have the right to forbid people from taking pictures when you allow them into your own place of residence if you so choose, mall owners have the same right."
I know that. I respect that. Their property, their rules. But let's just say that if I was treated that way by someone while I was on their private property I wouldn't come back.
Perhaps shopping malls should reconsider their strategy if they want customers to visit.
Re:Who owns the mall? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 04:05 · Score: 0

Usually malls are private property. Owners generally have the right to dictate behavior on their property. You have the right to forbid people from taking pictures when you allow them into your own place of residence if you so choose, mall owners have the same right.

Although that is generally true, the comparison isn't entirely valid. By measure of opening their doors to the public, they have given up certain property rights. For example, a racist man is free to set the rule that no black people may enter his home. A racist shop owner can't refuse service to somebody because of their skin color.
I'm not a lawyer, and I couldn't list to you all the differences between your private property and you private business, but it's not a one-to-one, "whatever rules I can set for my home I can set for my business" thing.

Stop going to this shopping center by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 23:11 · Score: 0

And anywhere else they treat there customers horribly like this article mentions.

Seen this before. by jimicus · 2011-10-10 23:22 · Score: 1

This is a very common trick used by people in positions of authority everywhere.

When you are want someone to do something but don't have an immediately clear reason why they should (or at least not one you're prepared/able to explain), pin responsibility on the absent third party. That third party doesn't have to be a physical person, it could just as well be some sort of rule - or for that matter the law.

Using "the law" is a common trick used by parents on their children; it's less common to see it used on adults because when it's misapplied, this is the sort of thing that happens.

But they have MOTORBIKE SEATS in their cafe! by evilandi · 2011-10-10 23:29 · Score: 1

Mate, look at the photo. They have MOTORBIKE SEATS instead of chairs in their cafe.

No amount of rights and freedom posturing is going to overcome the pressure of your kids wanting to SIT ON MOTORBIKES WHILST EATING ICE-CREAM.

My kids would happily have me donate DNA every visit in order to go to a cafe with motorbikes.

--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com

Its not illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 23:34 · Score: 0

Its not illegal to take personal photos in a public place in the UK. This was established in a high level court case a year or two ago when the police started becoming too heavy handed.

There is no "law" against it.

Re:Erosion of the Commons - contract law by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 23:43 · Score: 1

UK contract law is bounded by the EU consumer contract directive, which are transposed as the "Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999". In particular, Article 3.1 states that "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if,[...] it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.".

Since the typical mall operator does claim the right to make photo's, and does not individually negotiate these terms of entry, there is an imbalance to the detriment of the consumer. Therefore, this contract is legally unfair, and not binding.

From that, it follows that there is no legal basis for the confiscation of the camera, and then one must consider what criminal law covers such action.

Definition of a Tyranny... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 23:49 · Score: 0

A political or economic system which extensively films the activities of its citizens but will not allow the citizens to film the actions of its agents.

It's open to the public. NOT private property. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 23:59 · Score: 0

So stop with the "private property" bullshit.

Fair use is not an infringement by tepples · 2011-10-11 00:50 · Score: 1

All the art work on commercial packaging in the shopping center are copyrighted designs! You really think you can get away with copyright violations?

"The fair use of a copyrighted work, for purposes such as [...] research, is not an infringement of copyright." -- 17 USC 107

Re:Fair use is not an infringement by Fnord666 · 2011-10-11 02:57 · Score: 1

"The fair use of a copyrighted work, for purposes such as [...] research, is not an infringement of copyright." -- 17 USC 107
I didn't know the USC applied in England.

--
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Re:Fair use is not an infringement by ImprovOmega · 2011-10-11 03:44 · Score: 1

"The fair use of a copyrighted work, for purposes such as [...] research, is not an infringement of copyright." -- 17 USC 107
I didn't know the USC applied in England.
Give it a few years.
Re:Fair use is not an infringement by toriver · 2011-10-11 04:35 · Score: 1

What, in the 51st state? Surely it does...
(At least, to the extent the US tries to export its copyright laws through ACTA. you can just assume at some point it will be adopted.)
Re:Fair use is not an infringement by gstoddart · 2011-10-11 05:14 · Score: 1

I didn't know the USC applied in England.
Haven't you been paying attention? What do you think ACTA is?
Basically, the US pressured everyone to sign onto this to ramp up copyright protection around the world. The next step, is the USA adopts this, and the recording/movie industry owns the worlds police forces.
ACTA basically puts the world on the hook to enforce US copyright interests ... oh, and maybe the odd domestic ones can piggyback on it too now and then. But, really, it's more about Hollywood and Disney.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Fair use is not an infringement by gfreeman · 2011-10-11 06:00 · Score: 1

Since when does USC apply in Scotland?

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Re:Fair use is not an infringement by tepples · 2011-10-11 06:57 · Score: 1

My reply to Fnord666 applies as much to Scotland as much as it does to England and Wales.
Re:Fair use is not an infringement by gfreeman · 2011-10-11 07:11 · Score: 1

Just because there's a law in the US that is similar does not mean you can point to that law and claim that it applies to the UK. It's SIMILAR, but not the same and DOES NOT APPLY IN THE UK.
When stopped doing 65 in a 55 zone in the US would you claim exemption because the UK has a similar law prohibiting speeding, but the limit in the UK is 70?
SIMILAR is NOT THE SAME.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.

You live in a police state by Snaller · 2011-10-11 00:50 · Score: 1

Actually make that police world, you have no freedoms, if you think you do you are mistaken.

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating

British Police Warned "Photography is not Illegal" by benro03 · 2011-10-11 01:24 · Score: 1

TWO YEARS AGO British police were warned by Scotland Yard that taking pictures is not illegal and shouldn't be construed as a suspicious activity in and of itself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/yates-police-terrorism-powers-photography

"Unless there is a very good reason, people taking photographs should not be stopped," wrote Yates, who is Britain's senior counter-terrorism officer.

The fact is that it was the mall who stopped the man (for flimsy and absurd reasoning) and the cop was simply being a jerk. The mall is getting it's peepee spanked by his Facebook page and will pay through economic damage caused by their stupid actions. And (I can't believe I'm saying this) it is unfortunate the man can't sue because of it.

--
I am Homer of Borg, resistance is - Ooo Donuts!

Re:This is fairly common, it's not really news-wor by nosferatu1001 · 2011-10-11 01:29 · Score: 1

Not in England. Trespass is (rightly) a civil offence only.

not universally true by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 01:30 · Score: 0

eg, if you carry a gun into an establishment banning guns in georgia,
you may be asked to leave, but the owner has no recourse. see
the "no signage laws" section of http://www.georgiapacking.org/gflpol.php

I've had this problem with Target US... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 01:51 · Score: 0

... even when all I was trying to do was scan QR codes, which exist solely to provide ME, the CUSTOMER, with product information. The Target manager didn't care, and removed me from the store. This is yet another reason to avoid B&M stores.

Re:I've had this problem with Target US... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 02:00 · Score: 0

And to expound on the situation, the stores may have 'no photography' as part of their 'conditions of entry', but they are certainly not posted anywhere that's visible. And incidentally, I had a full cart, which I left at the store.
Keep treating your customers like criminals and the only people left in your store will be employees.

TSA wanabe's by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 01:51 · Score: 0

This is security theater.
If a bad guy wanted pictures, he could take them anyone noticing.

nice that the US isn't the most fucked up place by cod3r_ · 2011-10-11 02:15 · Score: 1

Sorry UK your police state is worse.

Security Guards Can Arrest In Canada by mlauzon · 2011-10-11 02:35 · Score: 1

For some reason, my comment on this ended up archived from a post I was responding to here, so here is what I wrote in response to it: Actually, here in Canada security guards can arrest you, it's in the Criminal Code of Canada, however, it is actually still a Citizen's Arrest, but surprisenly, you must still tell the person you're arresting his/her rights!

--
Michael
http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163

Angel in Islington... by El+Fantasmo · 2011-10-11 02:36 · Score: 1

While I was in London, I was at shopping center at Angel and a rent-a-cop asked me if I was taking pictures of the shops. I said I was taking pictures of the wings and halo sculptures. That was fine, but not the shops. I say, "If the let you in the shops what could they possibly be protecting against?"

Private Property ? by wideBlueSkies · 2011-10-11 03:05 · Score: 1

2 years ago I tried taking photos of my family in front of some X-mas decorations at the Market Fair Mall in Princeton, NJ.

I was spotted by security and threatened with ejection - they cited private properly rules. Which is actually kind of hard to argue with.

But they said it was policy that I could take all the photos I wanted around the decorations, IF we paid for a kid photo with Santa.

I caved because that's what we were there for anyway.... To get my little daughter a shot with Santa Claus. (though in the old day's sitting on Santa's knee at the mall was free, and sometimes netted a small toy... greedy bastards the management is today...)

--
Huh?

Presumption should be it's a public space by rkww · 2011-10-11 03:12 · Score: 1

The UK government's human rights committee discussed the ownership of shopping centres in the context of legal protest.

I do not think actually the proper distinction is whether this was formerly publicly owned and now become private or not, I think the distinction to be made is whether this is perceived as community space.

great by SuperDre · 2011-10-11 03:31 · Score: 1

that'll be a nice wrestling match if that officer wants to take my mobile, as I will not give it up to anyone for such nonsense reasons..

It happened to me in the US by hAckz0r · 2011-10-11 03:40 · Score: 1

I was at the local shopping mall with all my expensive photography equipment, taking pictures of the fossils in the floor tiles for a fossil club to be used at a local high school. All of a sudden I was surrounded by security guards ready to take my equipment. After some discussion and a scientific lesson on fossils in their own floor tiles, they finally allowed me to exit with my equipment. That is providing I didn't take any more photographs on the way out the door.

I guess I bored them to death. ;)

UK has fair dealing too by tepples · 2011-10-11 03:47 · Score: 1

Either A. you forgot about another common law jurisdiction's counterpart to fair use, B. you have something substantial to say about the difference in scope between fair use under United States law and fair dealing under United Kingdom law, or C. you were just making a funny. I can't exactly tell which.

Only if posted was there a violation. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 03:53 · Score: 0

' He was told by a security guard that taking a photo was illegal. He also said that a police officer claimed, 'he was within in his rights to confiscate the mobile phone on which the photos were taken.'

This would make more sense if the shopping center posted this warning to customers at the entrance of the store. 'You take my phone over this, I'll see you later..'

Amazing by Benanov · 2011-10-11 03:58 · Score: 1

Only the Dutch would come up with the idea of using this force for good. :)

Saturn Belgium by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 04:12 · Score: 0

BELGIUM/ SATURN WILRIJK (ANTWERP)
i had the same problem. I took pictures of the pricetags of computer monitors. On the tag was the brand, type, and price. No logo..
It did that so, I could later search on internet what would be a good monitor for me.
When walking around in the shop,a security guard came to me and asked me to delete the foto's...
It was ok to write the data but not to take a picture of it...

another anecdote, Trader Joe's in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 04:25 · Score: 0

About a week ago I was shopping in a Trader Joe's and stopped to take a photo of a nice-looking little balsa wood sculpture of a shipping port crane. (After getting four shots off,) The employee who was stocking on the shelf that the sculpture was atop told me I wasn't allowed to take photos inside there.

(Would TJ's be worried about people tracking price changes or something?)

In the USA this is usually a civil matter by davidwr · 2011-10-11 04:44 · Score: 2

With few exceptions, the worst a private-property owner can due is escort you off the property, photograph you, and take down your license plate #. They can also intimidate you into providing your ID - more on that later.

IF their rent-a-cops are real off-duty cops, they can get the cop to give you a trespass warning on the spot and the cop can request and in some cases demand ID.

Once they have your ID or enough information to identify you, they can contact the police and get a no-trespass order. This can extend to the entire chain, entire shopping mall, or entire chain of shopping malls with exceptions granted only for things like voting.

They can also sue you to get a court ordered destruction of the photographs.

But they generally can't detain you or block your exit. Well, they can try but they risk facing kidnapping charges.

I say "with few exceptions" - if they see you taking pictures in a way that could be reasonably construed as part of a larger criminal act, then they can call the cops and have you arrested. Examples would include "upskirt photography" which tries to take pictures of what's under a ladies dress by photographing reflections (this is illegal in some states), videoing (or infrared-photography) of people using (or just finished using) ATM or other PIN-entry devices, or other photography that is more often than not associated with criminal activity.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

Feeling good by glorybe · 2011-10-11 04:51 · Score: 0

As an American I feel good that we are not the only people who can have insane laws and really stupid security staff. What daft administration in the UK has come up with the whacked out idea that a person walking about in a shopping mall is in a "private" situation? A person who displays themselves in public is obviously not intending to be private in any sense of the word. If you say or do it in front of another human being it is public by definition.

Private property by Cloud+K · 2011-10-11 04:57 · Score: 1

It's a pain sometimes (some big shopping centres have some nice displays during certain times of the year!) but yeah, as it's private property they can ask you to stop taking photos or be escorted out. They can even, if they really wanted to (though it'd be bad for business) kick you out because they don't like your face.

Doesn't mean taking photos is illegal as such, just that if they don't allow it they have the right to boot you out.

Malls being private property and not some sort of public rights-exercising ground is a concept that some have still to learn (WHY ARE YOU CLOSED? I HAVE A RIGHT TO SHOP!) :)

Reasoning for being told not to take photos seems to vary, but when I was asked to put my camera away once - politely - the reason given was "the shops get a bit upset about their copyrighted logos", which is probably where the claims of illegality come in. And knowing how extremely touchy companies tend to be about their logos, it's not entirely surprising if it's the most popular reason that brought forth all this fuss to begin with.

It gets a little different, I believe, if you're taking pictures of the mall (including any outward facing shop windows) from the outside, as there you would be in a public area and they have chosen to display things in view of a public area. I've heard of photographers being asked to leave from in front of a shop on a public high street and, basically, being able to say no. Though I suspect depending on the side the policeman's on if they got involved, they could possibly think up some sort of public order offence.

Lottsa Laws Round that by RobertLTux · 2011-10-11 05:29 · Score: 1

1 a Shopping Center is PRIVATE PROPERTY with public access
2 the different storefronts are considered Copyright/Trade dress by each store
3 the various AntiTerror laws come into play because Shopping centers are a "target of Interest"

It quite frankly would be "legal" for the security guy to stomp the guys phone into gravel and have him thrown bodily from the premises (but NOT NORMALLY DONE).

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

Re:This is fairly common, it's not really news-wor by Grishnakh · 2011-10-11 05:30 · Score: 1

Not in England. Trespass is (rightly) a civil offence only.

Huh?

So if some guy breaks into your house, even the police aren't allowed to remove him, and your only recourse is to sue him?

That makes no sense at all.

We should raise some money and help him sue by Deliveranc3 · 2011-10-11 05:58 · Score: 1

Better to nip this insanity in the bud, no?

Can police come into your home too? by unassimilatible · 2011-10-11 05:59 · Score: 1

Police have a "legitimate need" to stop lots of crimes. Searching everyone's homes without warrants would really help that. So can they come search yours, Mr. Helpful?

You're the fucktwit. In America, the law is clear: A shopkeeper needs probable cause to detain and search a person leaving his store. And me walking to a register and paying for everything in plain sight does not constitute probable cause, not even remotely close. It's settled law in all US jurisdictions, not an "invented right."

--
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you

But how would the door guard know who you are? by unassimilatible · 2011-10-11 06:02 · Score: 1

> There is no such right, absent a lawful shoplifting detention.

Or that contract that you signed when you paid your annual membership dues. Refused your inspection? You just voluntarily terminated your contract, so you're free to walk out, but your account is canceled, and you'll never be allowed to shop at the chain again.

But hey, it's your right to refuse!

Do you know how many people come in and out of a Costco in a given day? If I walked out without showing my receipt, the guy at the door wouldn't know who I am. If I did this once a month for a year, maybe they might eventually recognize me. Maybe not.

--
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you

Uh, no by unassimilatible · 2011-10-11 06:08 · Score: 1

If some dumb security guy puts his damned dirty ape hands on you unlawfully, *you're the plaintiff* and he and his employer will be the ones with the legal bills. And in such a scenario, a lawyer would likely take your tort case on a contingency basis.

And it's "counsel."

--
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you

See replies above by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 06:41 · Score: 0

The club stores can't arrest or detain you, but maybe they can cancel your membership - if they could figure out who you are. The door guy doesn't know your name as you walk out. And will he be working there and remember you the next time you come into the store?

Been there, done that by tipo159 · 2011-10-11 06:46 · Score: 1

In 1994, when our daughter was around a year old, we took her out to a salad bar restaurant (Fresh Choice, I think). She was playing with her food as one-year-olds do and it was very funny, so we decided to record it for posterity on the camcorder. When we did this, we were approached by a restaurant employee who told us that no photography was allowed inside the restaurant and asked me to stop videotaping my daughter. I did. I also pointed out that, given where we were sitting and the layout of the restaurant, it wasn't possible for me to shoot video of much more than my wife and daughter and the people sitting behind them. I also pointed out that not allowing us to shoot videos of our kid seems like a family-unfriendly policy and we would be passing the word on to our friends with young children. Later, on the same visit, we got a big apology from the manager, explaining that while it was company policy, we could go ahead and shoot video of our daughter. He also gave up free meal coupons for our next visit.

What is this difference in scope? by tepples · 2011-10-11 07:44 · Score: 1

So in other words, as my other comment put it, it appears "you have something substantial to say about the difference in scope between fair use under United States law and fair dealing under United Kingdom law". What exactly is this relevant difference in scope?

The police have no rights in a free society. by mr_mischief · 2011-10-11 08:37 · Score: 1

In a free society, the police have no rights. They only have the power to encroach on the rights of a person when that person encroaches on the rights of others. For a constable or police officer being thought of as having any rights except as a random individual is just wrong. They have limited powers vested in them by the people they serve.

You will die to protest petty theft? by dbIII · 2011-10-11 10:54 · Score: 1

You sir are a coward and a fool.

Obviously someone that didn't read the SUBJECT and then skipped over a lot of the text. Please read it again and then get back to me. Pay attention to the portion about taking action later.
Also pay attention to the bit about it being an object and not a person. If somebody is taking children, loved ones or even just that guy on the street away it can be very important to stop them on the spot. For objects it doesn't matter as much.

Also try thinking about it seriously and whether you'd really want to serve a few years of time and have a permanent injury just to attempt to save a few photos and fail. That injury you wish to inflict on others above (hospital time) is going to result in hospital time for yourself in anywhere that doesn't have extremely professional law enforcement in addition to having to serve time for injuring a policeman. I doubt you'd do it because you'd work out how incredibly fucking stupid it is to sacrifice so much for something so trivial. That really makes me think your bold words put you into one of two catagories - an idiot that wants to escalate trivial situations into violence or a hypocritical sabre rattler calling for others to lose blood for pointless causes instead of important ones.
If a cop steals your stuff why get beaten up and arrested for it? It gets nothing done because by the time it gets to court the petty theft looks trivial in comparison and will be portrayed as a lie anyway. Instead go up the tree until you find somebody honest and then complain about the cop stealing your stuff instead of trying to look like a hero and instead getting labelled as somebody that tries to kill cops.
Reality is a little bit more complicated than a Tom Clancy novel :)

Re:You will die to protest petty theft? by KahabutDieDrake · 2011-10-11 15:21 · Score: 1

If the cops want my stuff, they have a legal right to take it. Or they don't, and they can't have it. So that part is really simple. I never said anything about fighting with the cops. The person with the gun makes the rules. I will protest them unjustly taking my stuff, but I'm not going to get in a physical confrontation with a bunch of armed goons. (or the cops)

However, I was under the impression that this guy was originally hassled by mall security, and that the GP was talking about mall security? So... did I read that wrong, or did you?

Now, back to my point... if you just docilely do whatever you are told by whatever passes for an authority figure, then you aren't really a human being, you are more like cattle. If that is ok with you, it's fine by me. You be cattle. I'll be with the cowboys, we'll do our best to keep you safe and to protect your rights, even if you won't.

Also, I don't want to go all ITG on you or anything, but you need to rework your perception of police officers as being competent in a hand to hand fight. They aren't, as a general rule. At least not in the US. There is no money in the budget for real training, so instead they get a 2 day workshop on how to subdue people. That's fine, if you have a numerical advantage, it won't do you a damn bit of good 1v1 with anyone that knows how to fight. That being said, no one said anything about assaulting the police... except you.
Re:You will die to protest petty theft? by dbIII · 2011-10-11 20:33 · Score: 2

That being said, no one said anything about assaulting the police... except you.
And of course the post I replied to in the first place! WTF do you think the "fight back with barred (sic) teeth" bullshit was supposed to mean? Didn't you notice my post was about fighting?
If you are going to throw insults such as "coward" and "really not a human being" around you really should try to actually read the thing you are referring to first. Couple that with your self ego pumping of "I'll be with the cowboys" and "knows how to fight" and it's beginning to look as if you've got a fairly loose connection to reality there so I'm obviously not going to give a shit about your easily handed out insults.

"Superheroes" are not supposed to insult normals by dbIII · 2011-10-11 20:20 · Score: 1

I never said anything about fighting with the cops.

WTF is all that heroic anarchist dead at 19 arguing over a bus ticket bullshit above then, such as:

My camera, on my person is inviolate. Physically assaulting me to take it away will result in A) Hospital time for someone

it won't do you a damn bit of good 1v1 with anyone that knows how to fight.

OK then Mr Norris in your own mind, such as the sort of cop that is more likely to apply force to you? Have you ever considered that the cops that are most likely to beat you up are the ones that have done it a lot before? When you are dealing with corrupt cops you really have to pick your battles because you are going to get hurt if you push it far enough and you are going to end up imprisoned at least until it's time to see a Magistrate and most likely a great deal more time than that just waiting for the case to be heard.
Also do you realise that you are insulting yourself as well because you are not really the superhero you describe yourself as above. "Anyone that knows how to fight" indeed. Dodging bullets and batons and outrunning police helicopters I suppose. Please put aside the play and discuss this as an adult instead, especially if you are going to insult me to the point of calling me a coward. If you played things the way you pretend you would and lived my life you would have been killed in a pointless "what's in the bag" incident twenty years ago instead of just showing some corrupt (and later imprisoned cops) some textbooks.
Also, why go all kung-fu over an object when you can complain to the whoever was elected in your area and get things sorted out that way? Ammo box is not supposed to come before ballot box, it's for when you have no ballot box.

This is the point I should have addressed before by dbIII · 2011-10-11 20:57 · Score: 1

You can't go complaining later because you don't like what you agreed to

Yes you can if they had no legal right to give that direction, steal your stuff or if it's an injust law that you can complain to representatives about.
So you stand your ground and decide to provoke things until you get beaten up (as you said above) - congratulations, you are now a statistic but no matyr because hardly anyone is going to give a shit about what you've done. It's your word against a cop so your option "C" is not going to happen without a witness the Judge considers of greater prestige than a cop. Random bystanders from normal jobs are not going to count even if there are fifty of them, you need doctors, lawyers, other cops or people of similar standing in the view of a Judge. What's worse, the cop has to justify beating you up so you get charged with something and most likely imprisoned for a while. Am I breaking through that naive shell yet?
At least I've given you someone you can misunderstand. make a straw man out of and feel superior to once you've inflated your ego a bit, but that really was not the point. Your action in doing that has disgusted me somewhat.

Re:TFA: Never states Security Guard could take Cam by petermgreen · 2011-10-11 22:56 · Score: 1

The actual law says that to confiscate his camera they'd have to arrest him for taking pictures likely to be used in a terrorist attack. I imagine the court case that followed, and then the lawsuit, would be an interesting gong show.

What if they arrest him and then release him without charge? Do they have to give the camera back? do they have to give the memory card back? If so do the pictures still have to be on the card when it's given back?

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register

Similar events by Dabido · 2011-10-12 04:06 · Score: 1

In 2003, when I was trying to get on a plane in Kalgoorlie to fly to Perth an Airport security guard started claiming that my digital camera might 'be a bomb' and started demanding I hand it over so he could 'throw it away'. I believe (and still do), that what he really wanted was the camera, so I refused to hand it over. He then said he'd get the police, so I agreed that he could call them. He then said if I could prove it was a working camera he'd let me keep it, else he'd assume it was a bomb and take it from me. So I turned it on and showed him it working ... I was a little afraid at this point because the batteries had previously died and I wasn't sure it would turn on. The fear was that I'd be put in a position where I'd have to chose between keeping my camera or flying where I needed to go. The camera was worth $500 and the plane ticket about $150 ... but I needed to get to my destination. Anyway, luckily the battery had enough charge to turn on once and prove it was a working camera (and died a few seconds later after he'd checked it .. phew).

My youngest brother wasn't so lucky and when he was out photographing nature in a park the police told him taking photos was illegal and confiscated his film and threw it in the bin. I spoke to my boss about this (he was a Snr Constable - I was working for WA Police at the time as a civilian) and he told me that the police officers did the wrong thing. Anything personal property they take from you, if it isn't something illegal (like drugs, weapons etc), you have a right to demand a receipt for and they are required to return it once the reason for why they took it from you had passed. For instance, in this case my boss suspected an operation was going down and they wanted to ensure that the photos my brother had taken didn't contain anything that might jeopardise the operation (like put officers lives at risk). But, also, if there was nothing jeopardising on the roll of film they took, then it should have been given back later. I wish my brother had taken their numbers down so that he could report them, but too late now. But, know your rights ... while we still have some to know.

--
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)

What to do when someone gets unnecessarily upset by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-12 05:45 · Score: 0

In cases like these: Calmly walk away and say nothing. Alternatively, if you're the kind of person who just enjoys a silly argument about "rights" for the sake of it, open your big face, why don't you? If you really are forced to speak, just answer: "I'm terribly sorry, I wasn't aware of your policy. I won't do it again". And then walk calmly away and carry on making the movie that got interrupted by that axe-gob wielding busybody, who wouldn't know a law if it f****d his sister.

Not here by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-12 14:10 · Score: 0

The UK and Australia share a lot of laws - but here, unless you're in a change room or something like that, it's perfectly legal to take pictures in a shopping center.
http://blog.privatei.com.au/optical-surveillance-laws-in-australia

Law -- what law by niftymitch · 2011-10-13 11:57 · Score: 1

The center may have a policy but that policy is not law.

I am astounded that a "center's" policy results in
the confiscation of personal property.

Was the policy posted in a clear and obvious way.

I have heard of people that have a policy that they should
liberate goods from establishments when they are of the opinion
that it over priced and or otherwise in need of liberation.

--
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.

Slashdot Mirror

Illegal To Take a Photo In a Shopping Center?

544 comments